21 July 2009 Report Item 1

Planning Development Control Committee - 21 July 2009 Report Item 1

Application No: 09/94120/FULL Full Application

Site: Land rear of Gilpin Close, Pilley, Lymington, SO41 5RY

Proposal: 9 affordable dwellings; access and parking areas; outbuildings

Applicant: Mr C Buchan-Hepburn, Hyde Martlet

Case Officer: Mark Funnell

Parish: BOLDRE

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council View Significant local interest or effect

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Conservation Area

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DW-E1 General development criteria (page 57) DW-E8 Trees (page 60) DW-E23 New development in Conservation Areas (page 70) DW-E40 New sites of nature conservation value and enhancement of existing (page 81) DW-E41 Protected species (page 81) DW-T8 Access, safety and traffic management requirements (page 100) DW-R3 Open space contributions (page 111) NF-E4 Landscape character of the New Forest (page 139) NF-E5 Design of new development in the New Forest (page 140) NF-H5 Outbuildings in the New Forest (page 145) NF-H8 Affordable housing for local needs in the New Forest (page 147)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Boldre Parish Council: Objects. Is disappointed that the new plans still do not address the problem leading to the Parish Council’s earlier objections. The access road would create an additional hazard at the garage entrances in view of increased traffic. No details of the external materials are available. Lighting issues have not been addressed.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Housing Development (NFDC): Supports the application. The District Council has worked with the applicant, Hyde Martlet, to achieve this affordable housing development in Boldre parish for local people. The development is reflective of the housing need and we commend Hyde Martlet for the collaborative and inclusive way in which they have worked with the Parish Council. Site selection and design has been strongly influenced by members of the community, the design is excellent and sensitive to the character of the New Forest and would enhance the village edge. The homes would be built to a high environmental standard.

7.2 Landscape Officer: The landscape layout is acceptable. Further details required about species of proposed trees and planting. There is no indication of lighting and it is recommended that details are sought prior to decision rather than left to condition.

7.3 Archaeologist: Given the scale of development the site should be the subject of a minimally invasive archaeological evaluation and a suitable planning condition should be imposed.

7.4 Ecologist: No objection subject to include submission of a revised landscaping scheme to meet requirements for biodiversity mitigation, and submission of a wildlife mitigation and enhancement scheme.

7.5 Highway Authority (HCC): No highway objections, subject to conditions relating to completion of parking and circulation areas and provision of cycle parking facilities before occupation.

7.6 Environmental Services - Building Design: No objection. This scheme in its revised format is acceptable subject to the usual conditions for materials, details, concealed meter boxes and landscaping. In terms external materials, feather-edged boarding and a mix of traditional tile and slate is recommended in this Conservation Area context.

7.7 Tree Officer: No tree objections subject to condition that an arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan are submitted and approved. Also, details of service runs and a specification for the footpath adjacent to the Lime tree need to be agreed.

7.8 Land Drainage (NFDC): Recommended a flood risk assessment is provided to ensure that adjacent properties or proposed properties or gardens would not suffer flooding.

7.9 Natural England: No objection. The proposed development would not be likely to have a significant effect on the New Forest designated sites. The Authority should secure measures to

2 enhance biodiversity through any permission.

7.10 Commercial Services Directorate - Household Waste Collection (NFDC): No comments received.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 Applicant (Hyde Martlet) writes in support: The revised application addresses the previous concerns. It follows considerable discussions with the Parish Council over a number of issues. External materials would be discussed with the Parish Council before being finalised. External lighting would be bollard lighting. The revised highway and pedestrian access arrangements are considered to be improvements.

8.2 Two representations in support:

HARAH (Hampshire Alliance for Rural Affordable Housing): Hyde Martlet have worked closely with the parties involved. This has enabled them to create a scheme that is very well designed and sensitive to the character of the local area. It would provide much needed affordable housing for local people and thereby contribute to the long term sustainability of the community.

Rural Housing Enablers (Community Action Hampshire): The NFDC Housing Register shows a high level of affordable housing need in the Boldre area (31 households). The proposed site is close to all amenities. The re-submission addresses the previous highways and design issues.

8.3 Seventeen representations from members of the public raising objections and concerns: • Lack of major change to the previous (withdrawn) application. • Principle of additional affordable housing in Pilley: There is already enough; Hudson Davies Close was due to be the last; insufficient demand in Pilley; would cater for families from elsewhere; affordable dwellings have recently been provided in Lymington; there are few local amenities. • Location of development: Gilpin Close already has six affordable dwellings; new dwellings should be dispersed in smaller groups around the parish, or alternatively sited at the recreation ground next to existing affordable housing; a greenfield site on the edge of the village is not appropriate. • Scale, design and character: Overdevelopment – nine dwellings is too much; detrimental effect on rural character of village and on special qualities of National Park; insufficient weight given to Conservation Area status; loss of agricultural land; departs from generally linear / ribbon nature of development along Pilley Hill; the mass of buildings with black timber cladding and the tiled car ports are not appropriate; too much harsh concrete and paving areas; 'estate' style

3 development. • Highway safety and parking: Increased volume of traffic; narrow site entrance; dangerous junction with Pilley Street; lack of pedestrian provision on local roads; would add to the existing daily congestion (including parking in Gilpin Close) associated with the primary school; insufficient parking spaces. • Impacts on neighbours: Loss of residential amenities; noise; four privately owned homes in Gilpin Close would be surrounded by affordable dwellings. • Ecology / landscape: Loss of wildlife habitat; concern of maintenance of landscaping; concern over light pollution • Drainage: Concerns over surface water drainage and flooding of adjacent land. • Other issues: A previous application for affordable housing on the site was turned down, including for highway reasons; shared equity dwellings should be considered as well as social rented; water pressure is abysmal in Pilley Street; notes that the adjacent Primary School is intending to have a larger new hall with community use.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Erect 15 social housing units (51225) refused on 10 February 1993

9.2 Nine affordable dwellings; access and parking areas; outbuildings (93647) withdrawn by applicant on 19 May 2009

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 The site comprises just over 0.4 ha of land to the rear (north) of Gilpin Close, off Pilley Hill. The site is currently part of an agricultural field. There are ten existing dwellings in Gilpin Close (one terrace of six bungalows, one terrace of four houses), including six existing affordable dwellings. There are further residential properties to the east and south, with the primary school to the east. The site lies within the Forest South East Conservation Area.

10.2 Consent is sought for nine affordable dwellings, associated outbuildings and access arrangements. This follows a survey of local housing need and the examination by the applicant of other possible options within Boldre parish. It also follows a more historic refusal of a larger affordable housing scheme at the site in 1993.

10.3 The development now proposed would be accessed off Gilpin Close, and would incorporate one 1-bed, six 2-bed and two 3-bed dwellings in buildings varying from single to two storeys. External materials are indicated as facing brickwork and timber weatherboarding, and concrete roof tiles. The outbuildings would be for cycle storage and waste bins.

10.4 The main criteria to be met is set out in Policy NF-H8 (affordable housing) which requires consideration of whether: • the proposal is put forward in exceptional circumstances for a small-scale housing development in or adjoining a village. • the dwellings would meet a particular local need that cannot be accommodated in any other way. • the dwellings would be managed by an appropriate body and secured by a legal agreement. • there are appropriate local facilities (e.g. school, shop, public transport). • the dwellings would be under 100 sq metres floorspace.

10.5 In terms of whether there are exceptional circumstances given the need for affordable housing, a Housing Needs Survey (2003) requested by the Parish Council identified 25 respondents who indicated a need for affordable housing (of which 24 had a local connection) and concluded that there is a need for more affordable housing in Boldre. New Forest District Council, as housing authority, confirms that there are currently 39 persons in the Boldre / Pilley / Norley Wood area registered as in need of housing.

10.6 Therefore, it is concluded that in principle there is a need for additional affordable housing within the parish and that the proposed development would assist in meeting that need. This is supported by representations from the Rural Housing Enablers and HARAH (Hampshire Alliance for Rural Affordable Housing). In terms of tenure, the main demand is for social rented dwellings (as proposed by the applicant), and the housing authority advises that shared ownership dwellings would normally only be expected as part of larger schemes.

10.7 With respect to the location of new affordable dwellings, the applicant investigated a number of options and sought informal advice from planning officers. A favourable response was given to the principle of affordable dwellings on land to the rear of Gilpin Close, particularly given the ready access to the field and the fact that there are dwellings only on the west and south sides of the Close. The site is considered to adjoin a village as per the policy requirement, and there are appropriate local facilities: there is the primary school, the war memorial hall and post office / shop, with a bus service available (albeit not a regular service). Compared to a number of other possible options, the site is considered to be a good location for affordable dwellings in the parish.

10.8 The applicant has discussed the actual form of development with both Authority officers and the Parish Council. It is noted that several local residents have objected to both the principle of greenfield development and the scale and impacts associated with the specific proposal. However, in the absence of suitable brownfield sites, a greenfield location is difficult to avoid, and the

5 actual siting and extent of the proposed development would mean that it is not prominent in views from the main street. This means that, although the Conservation Area Character Appraisal refers to the general ribbon form of development in the Bull Hill / Pilley area, the proposal is not considered to harm local character due to its non-linear nature. The Authority's Landscape Officer and Building Design Officer raise no objection to the proposed layout and visual impacts within the Conservation Area.

10.9 With respect to design and materials, following amendments to the previous application, the Authority's Building Design Officer raises no objection subject to the requirement for certain details by condition. He has however stressed the importance of appropriate materials and detailing.

10.10 In terms of the environmental credentials of the dwellings, they would meet Code for Sustainable Homes level 3, which involves a 25% improvement over current building regulations, and which soon all new dwellings will have to achieve.

10.11 With regard to site access, the proposed vehicular access off Gilpin Close has been shifted from that in the previous application, so it lies slightly to the east, leaving the parking and turning area at the end of the Close intact. Pedestrian links to the primary school and to land at the front of 10 Gilpin Close have been removed, following concerns by neighbours, the Parish Council and the Highway Authority.

10.12 The application has been accompanied by a traffic impact statement, which concludes that visibility splays at the junction with Pilley Hill would be acceptable and there would be no adverse effects from extra traffic. The Highway Authority raises no highway objections to the proposed development. However, the Parish Council and local residents have raised various concerns related to traffic from the new development, which would add to that of both local residents and parents of children at the primary school. Nonetheless, the development has been designed to provide parking and circulation for the new dwellings, and traffic to exiting properties and moving through the development and Gilpin Close would do so at low speeds. With the Highway Authority raising no objection, it is not considered possible to raise an objection on highway grounds.

10.13 Although impacts on neighbours have been raised as a concern, it is concluded that that the development would not involve any significant or direct impact that would warrant refusal of the application. No. 10 Gilpin Close would be the nearest house to the proposed dwellings, but the distance and angle of view from first floor windows towards the windows and garden of no. 10 are not considered to result in an unacceptable impact; the same applies to other nearby dwellings. The level of traffic and general activity and the parking situation would change as a result of the

6 development, although again this is not considered to involve an unacceptable impact on neighbours.

10.14 The application is accompanying by an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Desk Study Report, which concludes that although important ecological designations lie nearby, the site itself is only of modest ecological value; the report also recommends mitigation and enhancement measures. Natural England raises no objection to the proposed development, subject to the implementation of the mitigation measures, and site clearance works taking place outside of the bird breeding season. It also recommends that measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site are secured from the applicant. The Authority's Ecologist does raise some concern that biodiversity considerations have not been given enough attention in the application, although overall raises no objection subject to conditions. In conclusion, it is considered that there would be no unacceptable impact on ecological interests and there is scope through conditions to enhance local biodiversity.

10.15 With respect to landscape related issues, the Landscape Officer raises no objection subject to clarification / alteration of species in the proposed planting, and submission of lighting details. The Tree Officer raises no objection subject to further details by condition. The scheme contains a robust boundary hedgerow and other planting, and it would be important that such planting, plus appropriate hard landscaping and features, are included in the finished development. A condition dealing with external lighting, a particular concern of the Parish Council, is also proposed. This would prevent external lighting other than that specifically approved, and it is noted that the applicant envisages only low- level bollard lighting of the site, which would protect the visual amenities of the local area.

10.16 Policy DW-R3 of the Local Plan requires on-site provision of public open space for a development of this size. The applicant has set aside an area to the right of the access drive. A condition would be required to ensure this area is retained as public open space in perpetuity.

10.17 The District Council (land drainage section) has flagged up the importance of on-site surface water management and the need for a flood risk assessment being submitted. The site does not lie in an area of high flood risk, yet in order to avoid run-off from the site contributing to flooding, it is proposed that the above details are sought by condition.

10.18 The Authority's Archaeologist has also requested a condition to cover any potential archaeological interest at the site.

10.19 In terms of other issues being raised, it is noted that some local residents raise the issue of low water pressure in the local area.

7 Nonetheless, it would be for the applicant to ensure that adequate services were available for the new dwellings.

10.20 In conclusion, the recommendation is favourable, subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement to secure the dwellings as affordable in perpetuity, and subject to conditions as set out below.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Subject to the applicant entering into an s106 legal agreement to secure the dwellings as affordable dwellings in perpetuity, the Director of Strategy and Planning be delegated to grant permission subject to the following 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. Before development first commences a scheme of landscaping of the site shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. This scheme shall include:

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

Development shall only take place in accordance with the approved details.

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

3. Prior to any development (including site clearance) commencing, a wildlife mitigation and enhancement scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. The scheme shall provide details of measures recommended in the ecology report including retention and

8 provision of deadwood habitat, artificial refugia for variety of species groups, retention and provision of compensatory reptile grassland habitat and method statements for mitigation proposals such as those for reptiles. The scheme shall be implemented as approved and maintained thereafter in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: To support and enhance ecological interests in accordance with policies DW-E40 and DW-E41 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

4. The development hereby approved shall not take place until an arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan have been submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority, and unless the details thus approved have been implemented. The details shall include details of service runs and a specification for the footpath adjacent to the Lime tree.

Reason: To safeguard trees and natural features which are important to the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with policy DW-E8 and NF-E4 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

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

Reason: In order to ensure that the drainage arrangements are appropriate and that flooding of adjacent land does not occur, in accordance with policy DW-E50 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

6. No development shall take place (including site clearance) within the application site until the applicant or their agents or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, in accordance with a written brief and specification for a scheme of investigation and mitigation, which has been submitted by the developer and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The site is potentially of archaeological significance in accordance with Policies DW-E27 and DW-E28 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

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

(a) typical joinery details including eave, verge, bargeboard, soffit,

9 head, jamb, cill and plinth / threshold details at scale 1:50 and 1:10, with all casements to be balanced frame format; (b) details of concealed meter boxes.

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

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with policy DW-E1, NF-E5 and DW-E23 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

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

(a) samples or exact details of the facing and roofing materials; (b) finishes schedule.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the building in accordance with policies DW-E1, DW-E23 and NF-E5 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

9. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the turning space shown on the plan shall have been constructed within the curtilage to enable vehicles to enter and leave in a forward gear and this shall be maintained and kept available for that purpose at all times.

Reason: Preventing vehicles reversing onto this highway is in the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy DW-T8 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

10. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the agreed arrangements for parking within its curtilage have been implemented. These parking spaces shall thereafter be retained for their intended purposes at all times.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision is made in the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy DW-T9 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

11. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the agreed arrangements for parking within its curtilage have been implemented. These parking spaces shall thereafter be retained for their intended purposes at all times.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision is made in the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy DW-T9 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

12. No external lighting shall be installed on the site before details of such proposals have first been submitted to and approved by the

10 New Forest National Park Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the area in accordance with policies DW-E1 and DW-E43 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

13. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased 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 ensure the appearance and setting of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policies DW-E1 and DW-E7 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

14. The area labelled Public Open Space on approved drawing 0751_GAD_400003_C and since cross-hatched in green shall only be used as public open space, and maintained as such, and shall not be used for any other purposes.

Reason: In order to comply with the provision of open space requirements of policy DW-R3 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

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

Reason: To ensure the buildings and overall development remains of a scale and appearance which is appropriate to its location within the countryside and Conservation Area and to comply with policies DW-E1, DW-E23 and NF-H8 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

11 Kidnal 43 43 26 27 00m 00m Benbury 98400m 98400m

Bramble Cottage

83 83

The William Gilpin Pilley Church of England Primary School

Chimneys Glencoe

Five 10

GILPIN CLOSE 1

Skippers 7 6

Pond School House 98200m 98200m Russetts LB

Fleur-de-lys

GP Inn 1 14

3 6

Marill

Gilpin's Beeches Cottage

Hillside 43 43 Knapton

Tiptop Cottage 26 27 00m 00m Oak Field Bungalow Item: 1 Lodge Fleur de Lys Mobile Home Park New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 09/94120/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

LANE Licence no. 1000114703 2009 SCALE: 1:1250

12 Path (um)

SCHOOL

Planning Development Control Committee - 21 July 2009 Report Item 2

Application No: 09/93952/FULL Full Application

Site: Child and Family Centre, Lyndhurst Road, Ashurst, Southampton, SO40 7AR

Proposal: Extension and resurfacing of car park; associated landscaping

Applicant: Hampshire Primary Care Trust

Case Officer: Deborah Slade

Parish: ASHURST AND COLBURY

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council View

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

No specific designation

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DW-E1 General development criteria (page 57) DW-T9 New car parking provision on development sites and elsewhere (page 102) NF-E1 Control of development (in the New Forest) (page 135)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ashurst and Colbury Parish Council: Recommend refusal. Do not wish to have any enlargement of the existing areas which can accommodate more vehicles if marked parking bays were used. This is part of the New Forest and should not be further urbanised, suggest that the Verderers should be involved.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Highway Authority (HCC): Recommend refusal. The proposal involves development that cannot be reconciled with national planning policy guidance in PPG13 (Transport) in that it fails to make the best possible use of opportunities to reduce reliance on

13 the private car. The over provision of on-site car parking would encourage the reliance on the private car when alternative means transport are or can be made available. The over reliance on the private car would result in an unacceptable increase in the number and length of car journeys to the detriment of the environment and the locality. The proposal therefore conflicts with the Strategy of the Hampshire County Structure Plan Review particularly policies T1 to T5.

7.2 Natural England: The proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the adjacent protected sites. Planning conditions should be attached to control lighting, drainage and the storage of materials. There is the potential to introduce biodiversity enhancements.

7.3 Environmental Health (NFDC): No comments received.

7.4 Engineering & Land Drainage (NFDC): Drainage should be subject to planning conditions.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 Applicant writes in support that there has been increased demand since construction of main car park in 2002, and demand is set to increase due to the soon to be opened 'Creative Services' department and the introduction of additional beds in the birth centre. It also states that the arrangement would provide pedestrian routes through the car park.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Extension of existing car park (71332) approved on 18 April 2001

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 The Child and Family Centre is located at the Ashurst hospital complex on the eastern side of the National Park. The site is just outside of the defined village of Ashurst but is adjacent to the village boundary. It is near to the mainline Ashurst railway station and adjacent to a public house.

10.2 Consent is sought for a rearrangement of the existing car parking area (including re-surfacing) in addition to and a small extension. This would provide for a total of 100 spaces plus an additional 5 disabled spaces and 2 spaces for mini-buses/ deliveries. The existing car park is used by both staff and patients with no designated areas other than the disabled bays, and it is proposed that this would continue.

10.3 By way of background, planning permission was granted in 2001 for an extension of the then existing car park. At that time the number of spaces was increased by 20 to a total of 53 spaces plus an additional 4 disabled spaces.

10.4 More recently, in 2006, the applicant considered amending the approved layout of the extended car park to omit two central areas of planting, in order to attain greater capacity for parking. They were informed that a new planning application would be required. It appears that the two areas of landscaping have in any event been subsumed into the existing gravelled car parking surface and this currently provides for 55 spaces plus an additional 4 disabled spaces.

10.5 The main considerations are the impact on the landscape and visual amenities of the surrounding area, highway safety and promoting sustainable travel. Any impacts on nearby ecological interests are also relevant.

10.6 It should be noted that the increase in spaces would mostly be achieved by a rationalization of the layout of the existing parking area. Approximately 80 of the 100 spaces could be accommodated entirely within the existing parking area. The extension would be to the south of the site and would project a maximum of 7 metres from the existing parking area, into what is currently an area of scrub and informal landscaping where no significant trees would be lost. At all other points, the encroachment of the parking area would be less than 7 metres, and towards the south-west corner of the site there would be the restoration of part of the gravelled area to a more-fully landscaped area.

10.7 A few trees would be lost from within the site, near to the buildings, to accommodate a larger parking area. These are conifers which, whilst forming part of the previous landscaping plan, are not mature specimens and afford little amenity benefit, therefore their removal would not be resisted provided that more suitable perimeter planting occurred.

10.8 Although the re-arranged parking area would represent a larger and unbroken expanse of hard surfacing in comparison to the original car park, it would not be particularly visible in the wider landscape, including views from the open forest. Furthermore, new landscaping could be added at the edge of the new larger car park. Overall, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its impacts on landscape and visual amenities. However, it would be important to ensure that any external lighting (new or re- positioned) was designed to minimise lightspill into the adjacent countryside.

10.9 Turning to highway safety and sustainable travel considerations, the highway authority has objected to the proposal as it considers that the proposed increase in car parking contravenes the maximum parking standards that are set out in Policy DW-T9 of the adopted Local Plan. It also refers to a general lack of information and lack of proposed cycle parking.

10.10 It is acknowledged that this application represents an increase in car parking provision over and above what has been approved, and that it is the intention of PPG13 as well as the Hampshire Country Structure Plan to minimise use of the private car, especially in locations such as this one which is adjacent to a railway station.

10.11 However, of primary relevance is the New Forest District Local Plan including Appendix G7, which does not set a specific maximum limit for this type of development.

10.12 Policy T5 of the Structure Plan states that development will be granted where "the transportation requirements of the development can be accommodated", and it is concluded that subject to appropriate conditions, this would be the case. It should be noted that policies T1 - T4 of the Structure Plan are not "saved" policies and have now expired.

10.13 PPG13 states that where developments would have significant transport implications, a transport assessment should be submitted; no such assessment has been submitted in this case, rather an 'Interim Travel Plan' has been provided. It aims to discourage car trips to the site from all but operational users and concludes that the level of staff attraction to the site should be assessed to see if a reduction in numbers can be achieved. In line with these conclusions it is considered important for the site to have a travel plan in place, and the submitted document would need to be improved from its current form. A condition to require a sustainable travel plan is therefore proposed.

10.14 The concerns raised by both the Parish Council and the Highway Authority are noted but in view of the above, it is considered that it would be difficult to sustain a reason for refusal on sustainability and impact grounds, given the relatively small extension that is proposed.

10.15 Finally, in terms of ecological implications, the site is separated from the Site of Specific Scientific Interest and Special Area of Conservation by a buffer zone of landscaping within the site boundary, this is approximately 40 metres long to the south, 60 metres long to the east, and only around 2 metres long to the west where there would be little change to the appearance or footprint of the car park. Natural England were consulted and do not consider that the development is likely to cause harm to protected species, subject to relevant planning conditions.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Grant Subject to Conditions

16 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. Before development commences, details of the external treatments and means of disposal of surface water from the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. This shall include:

(a) the proposed surfacing material for all areas of the extended / re-configured parking area; (b) details of a sustainable drainage system for the parking area in accordance with the recommendations of PPS25.

The above details should include a suitable proprietary bypass interceptor between the extended / re-configured parking area and the connection to the existing surface water drainage system.

Development shall only take place in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To achieve suitable, sustainable drainage arrangements and to prevention pollution of the local environment, in accordance with policy DW-E50 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration and PPS25.

3. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme of landscaping and biodiversity enhancement of the site shall have been submitted for approval in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. This scheme shall include :

(a) the existing trees and shrubs which have been agreed to be retained; (b) a specification for new planting (species, size, spacing and location); (c) areas for hard surfacing and the materials to be used; (d) other means of enclosure; (e) biodiversity enhancement for the site; (f) 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 policies DW-E1, DW-E6 and DW-E40 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration, and PPS9.

17 4. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased 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 ensure the appearance and setting of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy DW-E1 and DW-E7 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

5. No external lighting (including new lighting and any re-positioned existing lighting) shall be installed to serve the new / re-configured parking spaces before details of such proposals have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority.

Reason: To protect the visual amenities and ecological interests of the area in accordance with policies DW-E1, DW-E39, DW-E41 and DW-E43 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

6. No goods, plant or machinery used for construction purposes shall be stored within the adjacent designated nature conservation sites (SSSI/SAC/SPA).

Reason: To prevent damage to the surrounding areas which are of particular ecological sensitivity in accordance with policies DW- E36, DW-E37, DW-E39 and DW-E41 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

7. Within three months of the commencement of construction of the development hereby permitted, an updated travel plan for the site shall be submitted to the New Forest National Park Authority. This shall include details of:-

(a) means by which staff and visitors are encouraged to use sustainable transport to and from the site; (b) means by which it is ensured that patients get priority use of the parking available.

Reason: To encourage sustainable travel in accordance with Policy DW-T9 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration and PPG13 (Transport).

8. Prior to the commencement of development details of the number, type and location of secure cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

18 Reason: To encourage sustainable travel in accordance with Policy DW-T9 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

Informative(s):

1. Any soakaways should be designed in accordance with BRE365 (Building Research Establishment) (latest version) as noted in Clause 3.30 of H3 of the Building Regulations 2000 and are to be designed to cope with a 1 in 100 year storm. The car park should be designed to contain some of the surface water storage above ground to obtain the 1 in 100 year storage required. No surface water is to be discharged to the watercourse as this is at capacity.

19 TCB 165

43 LYNDHURST ROAD 43 Craigmore

36 PO 37

177 00m 00m 144

110400m 110400m 185

Works

148 20.1m MP 85.25 Happy Gas Gov Cheese

Telephone El Sub Sta (PH) 187 Exchange

Mast

Car Park

Tank Car Park

Collects Chapel (private)

03 03

Tank

Ashurst Hospital

(Geriatric)

02 02

ED & Ward Bdy

Drain

1.22m TB 110100m 110100m 43 43 36 37 00m 00m Item: 2 Churchplace Inclosure New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 09/93952/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Planning Development Control Committee - 21 July 2009 Report Item 3

Application No: 09/93984/FULL Full Application

Site: Oak Tree Lodge Care Home, 114 Lyndhurst Road, Ashurst, Southampton, SO40 7AU Proposal: Ground and first floor extension and alterations; access alterations

Applicant: Carewise Homes Ltd

Case Officer: Paul Hocking

Parish: ASHURST AND COLBURY

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council View

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Defined New Forest Village

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

NF-P5 Care homes on the defined New Forest villages (page 174) DW-E1 General development criteria (page 57)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ashurst and Colbury Parish Council: Recommend refusal: The size of this development is not in keeping with the area and this corner site and may 'overpower' nearby dwellings. Similar applications have already been refused by the Authority and also by the Planning Inspectorate.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Highway Authority (HCC): No highway objections subject to conditions. This submission seeks to maintain the existing level of off-street parking (5 spaces) and confirms that the level of occupancy will be maintained at approximately the current level (below the licensed occupancy rate of 19 residents).

21 8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 Eight letters of objection raising the following concerns: • encroachment onto open space • loss of grass verge • insufficient parking provided • parking and manoeuvring would be hazardous to other road users • insufficient bin space • impact on the amenities space of adjoining properties • overshadowing • adversely change ambience of Holly Road • out of character • in-front of building line

8.2 One petition of objection containing 57 signatures concerning: • altered and more dangerous car parking behaviour • reduction in car parking spaces on the road • change in appearance would be more akin to a commercial building • location of waste bins a health hazard and further obstruction

8.3 Statements in support of application: • the comments of the previous Inspector have been taken on board in this revised scheme as all other issues have been deemed resolved and are no longer material considerations • reduction in ridge height and reduction in width of the proposal • provision of 5 parking spaces • no intensification of existing use

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 First floor extensions and alterations (93241) refused on 23 September 2008. Subsequent appeal dismissed on 25 March 2009.

9.2 First floor additions and alterations (92848) refused on 23 May 2008.

9.3 Conservatory (91253) granted on 16 April 2007.

9.4 Addition of owner’s accommodation on 1st floor (49762) granted on 14 May 1992.

9.5 Addition of owner’s accommodation on 1st floor (49122) refused on 19 February 1992.

9.6 Single storey addition and bedroom in roof space (42121) granted on 18 August 1989.

9.7 Additions and alterations to rest home (39705) refused on 16 January 1989.

22 9.8 Change of use to rest home (33949) granted on 23 March 1987

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Members will recall that this application was deferred at last month's Planning Committee to allow the issues raised in a petition, which was not referred to in the earlier report, to be addressed and also to provide amplification on the reasons for recommending planning permission, given the site's recent planning history.

10.2 To recap, the application site is an existing care home within the defined New Forest village of Ashurst. The building is substantially proportioned when placed in context with its immediate surroundings, and fronts both Lyndhurst Road and Holly Road with neighbouring properties in close proximity. The proposal relates to a first-floor extension.

10.3 The Authority refused the previous application for three reasons: increased bulk and massing affecting the amenities of 116 Lyndhurst Road, inadequate car parking resulting in increased on- street parking which would affect the safety of other users of Holly Lane, and the lack of cycle parking. These three reasons were subsequently considered at an appeal Hearing earlier this year.

10.4 It is important to note the relevance of the recent appeal decision. Whilst the appeal was dismissed the Inspector nevertheless provided clear guidance as to the weight that should be attached to the two outstanding issues (which is referred to below).

10.5 In respect of the proposed extension there have been minor alterations to the design and consequent bulk of the roof at the first-floor level following the dismissed scheme. The concern of the Authority is to ensure that these changes are sufficient to ensure that the amenities of 116 Lyndhurst Road would not be harmed. With regard to the dismissed scheme the Inspector concluded that there would be a marginally detrimental impact upon the living conditions (a ground floor living room and first floor bedroom) owing to the slightly overbearing physical impact of the pitched roof extension.

10.6 However, the Inspector also concluded that there would be no significant loss of natural light - daylight or sunlight - and no additional overlooking or potential loss to privacy stating that 'on balance, the effects on No. 116 Lyndhurst Road would not in themselves warrant dismissal of the appeal'. It is considered that the minor alterations of the current resubmission would slightly reduce any impact still further, but at the very least, support the Inspector's earlier conclusions.

10.7 Turning to the car parking provision, the dismissed scheme would have resulted in the loss of on-site car parking spaces. It was this

23 loss that prompted (in combination with the effect on 116 Lyndhurst Road) the Inspector to dismiss the appeal. Given that the appeal was dismissed as a result of the combination of the two primary issues, the Inspector stating that in isolation 'neither planning objection would be sufficient to warrant dismissal of the appeal', the decisive factor is whether the applicant has been able to accommodate an extension whilst retaining five on-site car parking spaces.

10.8 The applicant has now submitted a scheme that retains five on- site car parking spaces. Clearly the application site generates a (fluctuating) demand for on-street parking and while it was noted by the Inspector that there is anecdotal evidence of congestion and inconvenience arising from this, there was no evidence of serious or widespread parking congestion in Holly Road. This assessment has been accepted by the Highways Authority.

10.9 It is also worth noting that the Inspector considered the earlier scheme would marginally improve the appearance of the current street-scene and equally importantly in this case, it would improve the level of existing care home facilities at this site to the benefit of residents.

10.10 In conclusion, the changes made to the design of the extension and the car parking provision would be sufficient to overcome the previous reasons for refusal. The other issues raised, both in the petition and by other objectors, are acknowledged but these would not outweigh a recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Grant Subject to Conditions

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

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

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

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

3. Occupation of the extension hereby permitted shall not take place until the agreed arrangements for parking within its curtilage have been implemented. These parking spaces shall thereafter be

24 retained 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 policy DW-T9 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

4. Occupation of the extension hereby permitted shall not take place until the agreed arrangements for cycle parking within its curtilage have been implemented. These parking spaces shall thereafter be retained for their intended purposes at all times.

Reason: To encourage cycling and to ensure adequate parking provision is made in the interest of highway safety and to comply with policy DW-T9 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

25 2 2 43 43 37 38

00m 00m

1 23

PRINCESS ROAD 1

12 HOLLY ROAD 9

10 11

98 110600m 110600m

106

108 1

112 135

114 10 18.6m 137 118

124

ASH ROAD 8

110500m 110500m

141

149 Garage 145

126

1a 153

128 143

130

159

159a 161

TCB 165

PO 43 43 177 37 38 Ashurst 00m 00m

185 Item: 3 New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 09/93984/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton,Works SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Collects

Planning Development Control Committee - 21 July 2009 Report Item 4

Application No: 09/94035/FULL Full Application

Site: Thistle Down Farm, School Lane, Minstead, Lyndhurst, SO43 7GL

Proposal: Retention of agricultural building

Applicant: Mr T Bancroft

Case Officer: Paul Hocking

Parish: MINSTEAD

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council View

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Conservation Area

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

NF-B1 Agricultural development in the New Forest (page 152) DW-E23 New development in Conservation Areas (page 70)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Minstead Parish Council: Recommend refusal. The Parish Council recommended refusal of the original application. The fact that it has been moved to a position more prominent and nearer to the road does not change the Council's position.

7. CONSULTEES

No consultations required

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 Six representations received objecting to the proposal on the grounds of: • overwhelming size • creeping urbanisation

27 • overshadows neighbouring properties • disproportionate size in relation to acreage of holding • increase in traffic • precedent • detrimental to environment • building is obtrusive but sited in least objectionable location • unsympathetic

8.2 One representation received in support: • less visual impact in current location • there is a necessity to have good secure farm buildings

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Application under Part 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 in respect of construction of an agricultural building (93332) - prior approval not required 4 September 2008.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 The application site is situated within a Conservation Area and is rural in character. The site itself is a field set adjacent to School Lane. The field is bound by mature hedgerows and rises steeply to the north and east.

10.2 The application relates to the retention of an agricultural building which has a floor-space of 325 sq. metres and a height to ridge of 6.3 metres. It is constructed from pre-cast concrete panels and timber panels under a fibre cement roof. The front of the building is open and it is sited to the south-western corner of the field.

10.3 In August 2008 the Authority received an application for the prior approval of an agricultural building. The Authority was satisfied that the development complied with the provisions of Part 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and that further approval of the details of siting and external appearance would not be required. In the event, the applicant has constructed the building 14 metres closer to the road which has necessitated the need for this retrospective planning application.

10.4 It is considered that the building would be reasonably required for the purposes of agriculture and given that earlier scheme could be lawfully implemented, the key planning consideration is whether the revised position of the barn would be acceptable in landscape terms.

10.5 The application site is rural in character and typical of much of this part of the National Park. The south-western corner of the site is low lying and adjacent to the road, albeit distinguished by a large open verge and mature hedgerow. Land to the east steadily rises

28 and the building is not directly abutting residential properties. It is therefore considered that the site can accommodate a building of the scale proposed without harming the landscape character of the area. Indeed, this current (and lower) siting of the building would reduce its wider landscape impact.

10.6 It is considered that neighbouring amenities would not be harmed through the continued siting of the building in this location.

10.7 In summary, refusal of this retrospective application would entail the demolition of the existing building only to allow an identical structure to be lawfully constructed in a marginally more prominent location. However, as this is now a full application, a condition is recommended that should the barn subsequently not be required for agriculture, it should be removed.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Grant Subject to Conditions

Condition(s) 1. The building hereby permitted shall only be used for agricultural purposes and for no other commercial, business or storage purposes whatsoever.

When the agricultural use hereby permitted ceases, the building and all subsequent materials shall be removed from the site and the site shall be restored in a manner previously agreed in writing with the National Park Authority.

Reason: The building is only justified on the basis that it is necessary for agriculture and in accordance with policies NF-B1, DW-E23 and NF-E1 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

29 42 42 75 76 00m 00m

Clayhayes

Frogs Island

111200m 111200m

Thistledown 11 11

Broad Oaks Farm

111000m 111000m 42 42 75 76 00m 00m Item: Item 4 New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 09/94035/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Planning Development Control Committee - 21 July 2009 Report Item 5

Application No: 09/94047/FULL Full Application

Site: The Bee Garden, Norley Wood Road, Norley Wood, Lymington, SO41 5RX

Proposal: Replacement Dwelling and Outbuilding

Applicant: Mr & Mrs R Mayes

Case Officer: Deborah Slade

Parish: BOLDRE

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council View

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Conservation Area Ramsar Site Special Area of Conservation Special Protection Area Site of Special Scientific Interest

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DW-E1 General development criteria (page 57) DW-E8 Trees (page 60) DW-E23 New development in Conservation Areas (page 70) DW-E39 Nature conservation interest (page 81) DW-E41 Protected species (page 81) NF-E5 Design of new development in the New Forest (page 140) NF-H4 Replacement dwellings in the New Forest (page 144) NF-H5 Outbuildings in the New Forest (page 145)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Boldre Parish Council: Recommends refusal. Conservation Area consent should not be granted for demolition of the existing dwelling therefore planning permission for a new dwelling should not be granted.

31 7. CONSULTEES 7.1 Environmental Services - Conservation Area: No objection. This scheme follows extensive negotiations. The proposal involves a dwelling that would be a quality, modern interpretation of the original building picking up on traditional elements of vernacular design and materials for the area. As such the new design has more than enough merit to be considered an acceptable replacement for the existing building.

7.2 Natural England: Consider that their standing advice applies and that additional information is required in the form of an ecological survey due to the proximity of the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

7.3 Ecologist: Recommends that: • An appropriate condition is applied to ensure development does not result in storage of materials on the designated sites; • It should be ensured that the access track is not widened as part of the proposal (due to impact on SSSI grassland); • An advisory note relating to wildlife and protected species should be added to highlight the possible presence of species such as reptiles if the garden has suitable habitat (the design and access statement indicates that the garden is too manicured to support reptiles close to the house).

7.4 Tree Officer: No tree objections subject to condition regarding agreed tree protection and working methods prior to commencement of any development activity.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters of objection received from neighbouring residents on the grounds of:

the design is inappropriate for the adjacent rural village landscape; the existing cob / thatch vernacular building should remain as it was one of the last cob cottages to be built in the New Forest; the existing building has a lot of character which would be lost; this would encourage the loss of other cob buildings; the scheme would have an adverse impact upon the Conservation Area; the hedge between The Bee Garden and 8 Norleywood Cottages should remain to uphold amenity and minimise overbearing impact; there would be a loss of sunlight to 8 Norleywood Cottages; the building should not be moved towards the shared boundary with 8 Norleywood Cottages as there is no need for this.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 No relevant planning history.

32 10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Bee Garden is a cob and thatch dwelling located within the village of East Boldre in the open countryside of the National Park, and also within the Forest South East Conservation Area. The dwelling was built in 1926. The access to the curtilage adjoins the open forest which is subject to Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and other ecological designations.

10.2 This application is for a replacement dwelling on the site, plus a replacement outbuilding. Both would be largely located on the existing building footprints. The proposed replacement dwelling would have render and thatch as external materials and would be based on the massing of the existing building. It would however take on a more modern shape and form, including a central zinc roof link area and a slight curve to the rear wall to afford garden views. The principle of replacing the dwelling is compliant with Policy NF-H4 of the Local Plan.

10.3 The scheme is considered to fit in with the wider character of the Conservation Area in terms of its form and materials. It would have a modern design based upon New Forest vernacular traditions which would be considered to conserve the appearance of the area. The dwelling would fit mostly onto the existing footprint and would not become more dominant in the street scene. Similarly, the outbuilding is a simple single garage which would be sited to the side of the property. Whilst its orientation would differ from the outbuilding that it would replace, it would not appear significant within the wider area, and would not cause harm to the adjacent trees provided that it is implemented in accordance with tree protection conditions.

10.4 The floorspace of the property would be increased by 39 square metres, which equates to a 30% increase on existing floorspace. No other extensions have been recorded on the property since 1982. Therefore the proposal is compliant with the quantitative aspect of policy NF-H4.

10.5 In terms of residential amenity, the footprint of the proposed dwelling is mostly on that of the existing dwelling, and the dwelling would remain single storey, therefore neighbouring properties would mostly remain unaffected. There is one exception, where the replacement dwelling would protrude by a maximum additional 2.6 metres to the east. This would potentially encroach upon the shared boundary with 8 Norleywood Cottages. Nonetheless, the applicant aims to retain boundary vegetation with some pruning of the small trees, and other parts of the proposed dwelling are virtually in line with the existing end wall. With the majority of the screening retained, the replacement dwelling would not protrude much higher than the existing hedge, and this would be to the west of no. 8 with a distance of 15 metres between the two properties. Overall it is considered that the loss of light to no. 8

33 would not be significant.

10.6 A SSSI immediately adjoins the site, however no changes are proposed to the point of access to the property. Therefore, as long as all construction is contained within the site, there is not likely to be a significant impact upon the SSSI. Similarly, it is not considered that there is any particular reason why protected species would be encountered within the site during construction; the site affords no obvious areas of habitat for bats or reptiles or any other specific protected species. However, the applicant should be made aware of what to do if protected species are encountered during the course of replacing the building.

10.7 The drainage advice from the District Council is that surface water drainage should be conditioned as part of this development.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Grant Subject to Conditions

Condition(s)

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

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

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

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

2. The hedge along the eastern boundary of the site shall remain in situ and shall not be removed unless details of any such works are submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority before the works take place.

Reason: In the interests of residential and visual amenities in accordance with Policies DW-E1 and NF-E1 of the adopted New Forest Local Plan First Alteration.

3. No goods, plant, materials or machinery shall be stored within the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which lies immediately to the north of curtilage of The Bee Garden.

34 Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the locality and to safeguard nature conservation interests in accordance with policies DW-E1, DW-E39 and DW-E41 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

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

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

5. All soakaways must provide for a 1 in 10 year event and be located so as not to affect adjacent property. All soakaways are to be designed in accordance with BRE365 (Building Research Establishment) (latest version) as noted in Clause 3.30 of H3 of the Building Regulations 2000. All water from the site must be dealt with on the site and not discharged to the highway, highway ditch or adjacent property.

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

Informative(s):

1. The access track outside of the curtilage must not be widened or surfaced as part of the proposal. As the land is part of the Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI) any such works on the access may require specific consent.

2. It is possible that protected species such as reptiles are living at the site and therefore the applicant should be aware that the grant of planning consent does not absolve the applicant from complying with the relevant protecting species law, including obtaining and complying with the terms and conditions of any licences, as described in Part IV B of Circular 06/2005. Care must be taken during the works and if signs of any protected species are discovered at any point during the development work must cease immediately. Natural England or the acting consultant should then be contacted for advice. Natural England can be contacted on telephone number 02380 286410.

35 43 43 54 55 00m 00m

Norley Wood Cottage

97800m Cattle 97800m

Ponds

Grid

The Forest End Bee Casita Garden NORLEYWOOD ROAD

Brackens Swedish Houses Close

TCB

El 97700m 97700m Sub Sta

JOYS LANE 1

Avalon

Eden Cottage Rambler The Nook

Holme Glen

Ivy Cottage

Oakdene

Homeward The Hutt Forest Bound Ranch

Bago

Hillcrest Paul Shaun

Thatched Cottage

43 43 The Hollow

54 55 The Cabin

00m Tussocks 00m Item: 5 Ladywell New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 09/94047/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Radnor Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

36 Honey Plummers Cottage Water

Horseshoes

Planning Development Control Committee - 21 July 2009 Report Item 6

Application No: 09/94058/CAC Conservation Area Consent

Site: The Bee Garden, Norley Wood Road, Norley Wood, Lymington, SO41 5RX

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling (Conservation Area Consent application)

Applicant: Mr & Mrs S Mayes

Case Officer: Deborah Slade

Parish: BOLDRE

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council View

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Conservation Area

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DW-E24 Demolition in Conservation Areas (page 71)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Boldre Parish Council: Recommend refusal. The Parish Council's policy is to oppose the demolition of character dwellings in the parish. As this is in the Conservation Area, this cottage should be retained. Disagree with the Conservation Officer's judgement. Cob cottage construction should be retained since there are so few cob dwellings left in the Forest.

7. CONSULTEES 7.1 Environmental Services - Conservation Area: Initially the Authority's policy would have been against the demolition of this building on the basis of it being identified in the New Forest South East Conservation Area and that it had a cob construction that might have had an early date. However the applicant has successfully proved that the building was built in the 1920’s and has been significantly altered in the intervening years. It was also

37 pointed out that the building is only really making a contribution to local character because of the significant thatch roofs which are only very recent, being artificial materials prior to this. The building is therefore not now considered to have the relevant level of merit required to be identified as a building of vernacular detailing and local historic interest. In this respect there is sufficient merit in the building to prevent demolition providing an acceptable new build is submitted.

7.2 Archaeologist: A building recording condition is considered necessary in this instance.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters of objection received from neighbouring residents on the grounds of:

the existing cob / thatch vernacular building should remain as it was one of the last cob cottages to be built in the New Forest; the existing building has a lot of character which would be lost; this would encourage the loss of other cob buildings; the scheme would have an adverse impact upon the Conservation Area.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

No recent planning history.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 The Bee Garden is a cob and thatch dwelling located within the village of East Boldre in open countryside and in the Forest South East Conservation Area. The dwelling was built in 1926. The access to the curtilage adjoins the open forest which is subject to SSSI and other ecological designations.

10.2 This application is for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the existing cottage. Government Guidance (PPG15) states that if a building contributes positively to the character of a Conservation Area then its retention should be sought. It sets out criteria under which demolition might be considered, which are the same as those for the demolition of a Listed building. They include issues such as:

• is the building the work of a particular architect of regional or local note? • does it relate to adjacent Listed Buildings? • does the building have landmark quality? • does it reflect the traditional functional character of the area?

10.3 The applicant's design and access statement explains why this building is not considered to contribute positively to the

38 Conservation Area. The Bee Garden is a small scale traditionally thatched dwelling of single storey which has had successive extensions since the 1970s. In 1989 a thatched, pitched roof was added over the 1970s flat-roofed front extension. There is no record of planning permission for this addition. The roofs of the dwelling that can be viewed from public land to the north are therefore modern structures which have been substantially altered and have changed the original form of this building. There is no reference to this type of development within the 'key characteristics' section of the Conservation Area Character Appraisal for Forest South East.

10.4 Therefore on balance replacing one 'modern', thatched building with another would not be considered to have a detrimental impact upon the character of the Conservation Area.

10.5 PPG15 further states that "in less clear cut cases - for instance where a building makes little contribution - the Local Planning Authority will need to have full information about what is proposed for the site after demolition". When taking into account the proposed replacement scheme, which is the subject of a parallel planning application and comprises a structure of similar height with a traditional thatched roof, it is considered overall that there are no grounds to resist granting Conservation Area Consent in this instance.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Grant Subject to Conditions

Condition(s)

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

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

2. No demolition shall take place until planning permission has been granted and a contract has been let for the erection of an acceptable replacement dwelling. Within one month from the end of the demolition period, all rubble shall be removed from the site.

Reason: To preserve the visual amenities of the Conservation Area in accordance with policy DW-E24 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

3. No goods, plant, materials or machinery shall be stored on the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the closest boundary of which is immediately outside of the curtilage of The Bee Garden.

39 Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the locality in accordance with policies DW-E1, DW-E39 and DW-E41 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

4. No development shall take place (including site clearance or removal of building fabric) within the application site until the applicant or their agents or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological building recording in accordance with a written brief and specification, for a scheme of investigation and recording, which has been submitted by the developer and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The building is potentially of local heritage significance in accordance with Policy DW-E24 and DW-E27 of the New Forest District Plan Local Plan First Alteration.

40 43 43 54 55 00m 00m

Norley Wood Cottage

97800m Cattle 97800m

Ponds

Grid

The Forest End Bee Casita Garden NORLEYWOOD ROAD

Brackens Swedish Houses Close

TCB

El 97700m 97700m Sub Sta

JOYS LANE 1

Avalon

Eden Cottage Rambler The Nook

Holme Glen

Ivy Cottage

Oakdene

Homeward The Hutt Forest Bound Ranch

Bago

Hillcrest Paul Shaun

Thatched Cottage 43 43

54 55 The Hollow The Cabin 00m 00m Tussocks Item: 6 New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 09/94058/CAG Ladywell South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD Radnor

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Honey Plummers Cottage Water

Horseshoes

Planning Development Control Committee - 21 July 2009 Report Item 7

Application No: 09/94062/FULL Full Application

Site: Wigeon Cottage, Lymore Lane, Keyhaven, Lymington, SO41 0TS

Proposal: Two storey side and first floor front extensions.

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Lister

Case Officer: Paul Hocking

Parish: MILFORD-ON-SEA

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council View

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Conservation Area

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

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

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS Milford-on-Sea Parish Council Recommend permission. The applicant has sought to address the concerns raised on the previous application (93678).

This proposal would enhance the character of the building and is in keeping with the surrounding area.

7. CONSULTEES

No consultations required

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 Seven representations received in support of the proposal on the grounds of improved appearance of building and area; in-keeping

42 with the character of Keyhaven; sensitively designed and sympathetic.

8.2 Three representations received objecting to the proposal on the grounds of loss of light to patio and garden facing windows; inaccurate plans; large increase in size; more conspicuous in the street-scene; detrimental to Conservation Area; out of proportion; suburban design; increased visual bulk; overbearing and oppressive.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Two-storey side and first floor front extensions (93678) refused on 16 February 2009. Currently at appeal.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 The application site is within the Keyhaven Conservation Area and accommodates a reasonably modest and traditional property, although of limited architectural merit, with a pebble dash finish. The property is set back within a mature plot with open frontage partly set to hardstanding. The neighbouring property to the north is set within close proximity of the road and at a lower level than the application site.

10.2 The proposal relates to two storey side and front extensions. The front gable would have a width of 6.3 metres, depth of 3.2 metres and height to ridge of 6.8 metres. The side extension would have a width of 2.2 metres. Matching materials would be employed.

10.3 The key planning consideration relates to the design and form of the proposal in relation to the character and appearance of the area and its impact on neighbouring amenities.

10.4 In terms of floorspace, the proposal would result in a 30% increase since 1st July 1982 and would therefore comply with policy.

10.5 The submission follows an earlier refusal which is now the subject of an appeal. As with the previous scheme, the two storey side extension would be acceptable, the main concern being with the forward front extension. The current submission would marginally reduce the height to ridge of this element by some 30 cm and would incorporate a half-hipped feature to the east elevation and catslide type roof to the north. In practical terms the difference between the two submissions would however be minimal.

10.6 The neighbouring property (Forfeits) is set approximately 1 metre lower than the application site and there is an intimate relationship between these two properties. The applicant has previously provided shadow diagrams and contends that detrimental overshadowing would not result from the proposed extension,

43 although such an assessment is marginal. However this assessment does not take into account the physical presence of the proposal.

10.7 Given the changes are marginal, it is still considered that due to the proximity, height and relationship between the properties, the development would result in a visually intrusive, oppressive and overbearing form of development. The impact and nature is considered to be of a scale that would detrimentally affect the occupiers’ private enjoyment of 'Forfeits'.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s) 1. The development would introduce a visually intrusive and overbearing form of development to the front of the property that by virtue of its proximity, height, massing and relationship with the neighbouring residential property 'Forfeits' would detrimentally affect the private enjoyment of the occupiers of that property. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy DW-E1 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

44 43 43 03 05 00m 00m Jesmond Cottage 04 Sewage Pumping Station Solent 0.9m View 91900m 91900m

Broadoak

8 Aubrey Farm

Cottage 7

Midfarms

Woodlea Pear Tree Coventry Cottage Cottage

Salterns View 1

Forfeits

18 18

LYMORE LANE

Wigeon Cottage

Tanks

91700m 91700m 1.5m

Marsh View Aubrey Cottage 43 43 05 03 04 Keyhaven 00m 00m HavenItem: Bank 7 Lodge New Forest National ParkKeyhaven Authority Ref: 09/94062/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Barn Aubrey Farm Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 GREEN KEYHAVEN ROAD 12 HAREWOOD

Avon LB West Cottages Creek Fairlee Aubrey Nymar Carrick

Planning Development Control Committee - 21 July 2009 Report Item 8

Application No: 09/94095/FULL Full Application

Site: Southill, Canterton Lane, Brook, Lyndhurst, SO43 7HF

Proposal: Manege

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Adkin & Hegedus

Case Officer: Paul Hocking

Parish: BRAMSHAW

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council View

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Conservation Area

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DW-E23 New development in Conservation Areas (page 70) NF-R8 Maneges in the New Forest (page 172) NF-E4 Landscape character of the New Forest (page 139) DW-E8 Trees (page 60) DW-E50 Drainage (page 90)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Bramshaw Parish Council: Recommend refusal. The Parish Council is concerned that the construction of the manege will damage the root system of existing well established trees. In addition, a manege is only as good as the drainage provided and there are no details contained within the application as to how it will be drained.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Landscaping: No objection: Providing no trees are to be felled there are no landscape objections to the manege location or the proposed fences and gate. The manege is well screened with mature trees and the hedgerow and will not overly detract from

46 the landscape character of the area.

7.2 Trees: No objection: The manege would not necessitate the removal of trees. There is a good level of surrounding tree cover and good woodland cover on the opposite side of the road. Under the circumstances it is considered that an objection on tree grounds could not be sustained.

7.3 Land Drainage (NFDC): The applicant will need to submit further details for written approval to show that there will be no change to the quantity or rate of flow of water leaving the site.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 None received

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 None directly relevant

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 The application site lies within the Forest Central (North) Conservation Area and comprises an early twentieth century building of traditional form and appearance. The principle elevation of the property fronts onto Canterton Lane. To the north of the property is a small paddock, set adjacent to Canterton Lane, which is enclosed by a mature boundary hedgerow. There are a number of significant trees within the vicinity.

10.2 The proposal relates to a manege that would be 20 metres in width and 40 metres in length. It would be enclosed by a post and rail fence (1.37 metres in height) and would be accessed via a single set of gates. It would be sited in close proximity to the property's domestic curtilage, to the north of the dwelling.

10.3 The key planning consideration is to ensure that the development would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would not result in any detrimental impact on the landscape and ecology of the New Forest.

10.4 Amended plans were received in order to re-locate the manege some 10m further to the north to take account of trees at the site (which had not been accurately plotted on the original plans). The proposal would not result in the direct loss of any trees and given the level of woodland cover surrounding the site it is considered that an objection on tree grounds could not be sustained. A condition seeking their protection during the period of construction is however suggested.

10.5 The paddock is comparatively compact in size and well related to both the existing dwelling and stables. It benefits from good

47 woodland cover to the east and a mature well established hedgerow bounding the roadside to the north and west. It is therefore considered that the introduction of the manege would not have an undue impact within the lane and thus would not erode the rural character of the area from points of public vantage. In addition, the development would be considered to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would not affect features that contribute to the established pattern of development in the area. Details have also been provided concerning proposed site levels.

10.6 The comments of the Parish Council and Land Drainage have been noted and therefore a condition is suggested to ensure that appropriate drainage and surface run-off methods are employed.

10.7 It is therefore considered that subject to conditions the introduction of a manege in this location would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would not result in any detrimental impact on the landscape and ecology of the New Forest.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Grant Subject to Conditions

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

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

2. The manege shall be used only for the exercising of horses belonging to or under the control of the owner of the land edged blue on the approved plans, and shall not be used for any commercial riding or training purposes or as an equestrian show arena.

Reason: The use of the manege on a commercial basis would cause harm by virtue of increased levels of general activity as well as riding activity, and this would be contrary to policy NF-R5 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

3. No floodlighting shall be installed to illuminate the manege hereby approved unless express planning permission has first been granted.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the countryside and the amenities of nearby residential properties in accordance with policy NF-R8 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

48 4. Before development commences, details of the means of disposal of surface water from the manege shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority.

Development shall only take place in accordance with the approved details.

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

5. No development shall take place until samples of the surfacing material have been submitted to and approved by the New Forest National Park Authority.

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

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

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

49 Sewage

Works 42 42 76 77 00m 00m

Shave Bridge

September Cottage

113600m 113600m

Track Foot Bridge

Forest Ford 113500m 113500m 42 42 76 77 00m 00m Item: 8 New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 09/94095/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Footbridge

Planning Development Control Committee - 21 July 2009 Report Item 9

Application No: 09/94105/FULL Full Application

Site: Five Hollies, Holly Lane, Pilley, Lymington, SO41 5QY

Proposal: One and two storey extensions; porch; external alterations; outbuilding

Applicant: Mr B Ford

Case Officer: Liz Young

Parish: BOLDRE

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council View

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Conservation Area

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DW-E1 General development criteria (page 57) DW-E23 New development in Conservation Areas (page 70) NF-H3 Extensions to dwellings in the New Forest (page 144) NF-H5 Outbuildings in the New Forest (page 145)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Boldre Parish Council: Recommends refusal; the proposal is contrary to our policy of retaining a supply of modest two bedroom properties available for local people to remain in the Forest.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Environmental Services - Conservation Area: The scheme has resulted from considerable pre-application advice and is now considered to be acceptable in design terms.

7.2 Land Drainage (NFDC): Any soakaway should be sited so as not to cause problems to the adjacent property.

51 8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 None received.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 None.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Five Hollies is one of a pair of modest semi-detached cob cottages which currently have a balanced appearance and modest, compact form despite some more recent additions. The properties are situated within the Forest South East Conservation area amongst a cluster of small scale residential development characterised by modest plots enclosed by a mix of fences and hedgerows. The site also lies in close proximity to the open forest.

10.2 Consent is now sought to carry out a one and a half storey extension to the south side of the dwelling incorporating a modest front dormer and to replace the existing flat roofed porch to the front of the dwelling with a porch occupying a similar footprint, but incorporating a pitched roof. The modest extension to the rear of the dwelling would be removed. A detached single garage incorporating a gabled roof and side hung doors is proposed immediately to the south of the extension. Timber cladding is proposed both on the garage and on the extension, whilst the roof would be tiled in slate.

10.3 The original floorspace of the dwelling measured 84.5 square metres and the proposed extensions would result in a gross internal floorspace of just over 103 square metres; this amounts to an increase of 22%, which falls within the limit specified under Policy NF-H3. Whilst concerns raised by the Parish Council are acknowledged, there is no adopted policy which brings about a requirement to retain two bedroom properties. Furthermore, under recent changes in planning legislation a substantial extension could be constructed under Permitted Development rights along the length of the rear elevation (the grant of planning permission for an appropriate scheme would enable the removal of permitted development rights).

10.4 This application follows extensive pre-application discussion and the plans submitted adhere to previous advice given; the proposed extension would be subservient to the dwelling and would not significantly impact upon the overall balance and composition between the two dwellings. The replacement of the flat roofed porch to the front and the removal of the extension to the rear would also be beneficial. Whilst the proposed garage was not discussed prior to the submission of the application, it would be a modest and simple structure with rural characteristics and

52 set back from the front building line of the dwelling.

10.5 Neither the proposed garage nor the extension would have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents. The proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would meet the requirements of Policies DW-E1, DW-E23 and NF-H3.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Grant Subject to Conditions

Condition(s)

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

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

2. Before development commences typical joinery details including window/doors, eaves, verge and bargeboards shall be submitted to and approved by the New Forest National Park Authority. Development shall only take place in accordance with those details which have been approved.

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

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

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

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

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

53 HOLLY LANE

Holly Cottage Furze Cottage 43 43 39 41 00m 00m

40 Veronica

Skelwith Force

Cuileane Cott

North Dene

Byways 98400m 98400m Appletree

Cott

White House Oaktree Cottage Holly Lane Bali Hi Nurseries Sunny Croft

Bull Hill Norwood

April

Cott Cherry Tree Cottage

The Wrens Nest Five Fir

Hollies Tree

HOLLY LANE Santa Fe Cottages

83 Stream Cottage 83 1 2

Beltane Holly Pond Grove Kumincyde Melrose Lyndale Fox Cottages Silverhayes Littlecroft Green Farm Hayes

Water Forest Hill Long Acres

Plummers

LB 98200m 98200m 43 43 41 39 40 00m 00m Item: 9 New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 09/94105/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Planning Development Control Committee - 21 July 2009 Report Item 10

Application No: 09/94111/FULL Full Application

Site: Emery Down Post Office, 5 Silver Street, Emery Down, Lyndhurst, SO43 7DX Proposal: Change of use to two dwellings; external alterations

Applicant: Mrs Fry

Case Officer: Liz Young

Parish: LYNDHURST

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council View

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Conservation Area

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

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

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Lyndhurst Parish Council: Recommend permission; shop is no longer viable; proposals are in keeping with the area; no overlooking to adjoining properties.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Highway Authority (HCC): Recommend refusal; the proposal includes for the provision of a garage door that would open out over the adjacent highway, which is deemed to be an obstruction

55 of the said highway.

7.2 Housing Development (NFDC): No comments received.

7.3 Natural England: The application falls under Natural England's legal standing advice.

7.4 Ecologist: No objections. On the understanding that the roof space would not be affected, and that the verges adjacent to the site would not be affected, then there does not seem reason to warrant a refusal of the application as submitted.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 Four letters of support received from neighbouring residents.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Detached garage (71764) granted 15 June 2001

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Emery Down Post Office is a detached two and a half storey building positioned on a steeply sloping plot and fronting directly onto Silver Street. The property also lies close to the corner of Silver Street and the main road through Emery Down, and is within the Emery Down Conservation Area. The property does not appear to benefit from any off road parking, although there is a small pedestrian gate between the building and its associated domestic outbuilding providing access to the garden to the rear. With the building is the shop and some domestic accommodation (kitchen and internal stairwell) on ground floor level, and further residential accommodation at first floor level. The residential accommodation has effectively been split into a main three- bedroomed unit accessed from the front, and what appears to be a long-established small studio flat accessed from an external stairway to the rear.

10.2 Consent is now sought to reconfigure the internal layout of the building, effectively incorporating the shop into two larger residential units. There would only be minor external alterations, including the removal of the external staircase and associated elevated door from the rear elevation, the addition of a set of patio doors, and also garage doors to the front elevation to serve a one- car garage.

10.3 By way of background, the applicant has owned the property since 1987, and the premise was run as a post office and general store until June 2008, when the unviability of the business prompted closure. The agent states that the property has been on the market since February 2008, but the unviability of the store has made the property unsaleable.

10.4 The Authority received an informal enquiry in May 2008 regarding the introduction of the serving of light refreshments in the retail unit. Such use in this location would not comply with Local Plan policy, and advice was given as such. In a further enquiry in March 2009, the applicant sought informal feedback on the principle of the current proposed development, and an application for full residential conversion without some form of office / business use was discouraged.

10.5 The main considerations are the permanent loss of the retail use (which was effectively the last remaining convenience store in the immediate locality), the policy implications of residential use, and any other potential impacts including highway safety.

10.6 Policy NF-S5 (loss of rural shops in the New Forest) states: "The change of use of a shop to financial and professional services or other office / business uses will be permitted provided the proposal would not result in the loss of the last convenience shop serving the settlement. A change from retail to residential use will not be permitted".

10.7 Therefore, only in exceptional circumstances, if it is demonstrated that the shop is no longer viable, then the Authority could consider a proposal for an alternative use, with the emphasis on financial and professional services or other office / business uses rather than any residential use.

10.8 The planning application has been accompanied by financial information relating to the operation of the post office and shop in 2007 and 2008, along with a forecast for 2009. The average decline in business amounts to an average of 21.5% between 2007 and 2008, resulting in a loss of £104 for the year ending June 2008 (prior to drawing any salary other than the Post Office salary). A loss of over £13,000 was predicted for 2009. It is stated that these figures would limit the potential sale of the premises as a shop and that the reasons for the reduced viability relate to increased overheads, the loss of the Post Office, competition from supermarkets and the narrowing of Mill Lane, reducing traffic flows and any resultant passing trade. This information indicates that the retail use - in particular following the post office closure - is not viable to continue and that it would be unrealistic to insist on the retention of the use of the building as the last shop in the community - in particular given the proximity of Lyndhurst.

10.9 In terms of other possible uses, the agent states that office use would generate traffic and create parking problems, and that offices are available in Lyndhurst nearby. However, a small scale office or live-work unit is unlikely to generate as much visitor traffic as the retail use (particularly when taking account of the limited floorspace) and would continue an element of employment and possibly service provision in the local area. The potential demand

57 for office accommodation does not appear to have been investigated; the Authority has in the past received a number of enquires relating to the conversion of buildings in similar locations, and the conversion of the building to some form of office use for a nearby resident could offer a sustainable alternative to working elsewhere. By contrast, although the reasoning for residential is understandable and the Parish Council support is noted, the Local Plan is clear that residential should only be a last resort. The proposed development would therefore conflict with policy NF-S5.

10.10 In terms of residential floorspace, it is noted that there would be a net increase, and that policy NF-H3 of the Local Plan seeks to limit increases in the floorspace of dwellings. Overall the increase in residential accommodation across the indicated two units would amount to 54%, and the development would conflict with the limits on increases in floorspace in policy NF-H3. However, given that the previous use was for retail - with higher levels of activity associated with it than residential use - and that the building itself would not be physically enlarged, it would be difficult to sustain refusal under policy NF-H3 in its own right.

10.11 As noted by the Highway Authority, the proposal to incorporate garage doors which open out onto the adjacent highway would cause an obstruction to traffic and pedestrians. This would be contrary to the requirements of Policy DW-T8 and is therefore a reason for refusal.

10.12 With regards to other issues, it is considered that the proposed development would not be unacceptably harmful to the amenity of any neighbouring residents or the character and appearance of the building. Whilst comments from Natural England state that the proposal falls under their legal standing advice and that an ecological survey would be required, it is concluded that it is unlikely that the proposed works would lead to any direct harm to either protected species or the adjacent designated site.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1. The proposed development would result in the permanent loss of the last convenience shop within the settlement of Emery Down and conversion to full residential use of the building without demonstrating that financial and professional services or other office / business uses have been investigated as viable alternative options. The proposed change of use from retail to residential is considered to be contrary to the requirements of Policy NF-S5 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

58 2. The proposal includes for the provision of a garage doors that would open out into the adjacent highway, thereby causing an obstruction to the highway. The proposal would not therefore meet highway safety requirements and would be contrary to policy DW-T8 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

59 42 42

87 Horse Shoe Farm 89 00m 00m 88

Hall Horseshoe Cottage FF

Def

Pennyfield

108500m 108500m End Cottage

The Thatched House

Hare Hatch Bridgwater 15 Cottages Clematis 0.91m RH

Cottage Crane Cottage

Penny Cottage Oaktree Dunelm Little Cote

Church Und Redcote Christchurch Cott Cottages SILVER STREETShip Cottage Green 3 House

2 The Charcoal Cott 1 1 Nook

Cottage Honeysuckle Cott Double Cream 5 TCB 69.8m Wisteria Cottage One Cream LB 84 Cottage 84 Northerwood Lych Gate Merton Lodge Cottage Northerwood Inclosure El Sub Sta Christ Church

Cattle Grid

79.2m

108300m 108300m 42 42 89 87 88 00m 00m Item: 10 New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 09/94111/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Planning Development Control Committee - 21 July 2009 Report Item 11

Application No: 09/94188/FULL Full Application

Site: Langford Farm, Paradise Lane, Woodlands, Southampton, SO40 7GS Proposal: Retention of manege

Applicant: Mrs Keating

Case Officer: Sandy Tolmay

Parish: NETLEY MARSH

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Referred by Authority Member

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Conservation Area

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DW-E38 Locally designated sites (page 79) DW-E50 Drainage (page 90) NF-E1 Control of development (in the New Forest) (page 135) NF-R8 Maneges in the New Forest (page 172) DW-E23 New development in Conservation Areas (page 70)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

Peter Frost: application should be considered by the Planning Committee in view of the site's considerable planning history.

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Netley Marsh Parish Council: The Parish Council is due to meet on 15 July 2009. Their comments on the application will be available at the meeting.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Land Drainage (NFDC): Full details and calculations of the soakaway system must be sent to the Authority for written approval. All water must be dealt with on the site and no water is to be passed to any ditch or watercourse as these will run to the Bartley main river which is at capacity.

61 7.2 Ecologist: No objection, subject to an informative. As the development has already occurred there is a limited requirement to mitigate site operations. If further works are required the applicant should show due regard to the possible presence of protected species although given the developed nature of the area the likelihood of protected species being affected is lower. Any further drainage works required could affect the hydrology of the SINC and any such proposed works should be conditioned.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 No representations received.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Members clubhouse with public room, kitchen and toilet accommodation, for horse shows (09597) granted on 14 September 1978.

9.2 Construction of vehicular access (10450) granted on 23 August 1978.

9.3 Addition of a beer store (12792) granted on 9 April 1979.

9.4 Erection of indoor arena (15020) refused on 12 January 1980.

9.5 Erection of indoor arena (18696) refused on 26 March 1981. Allowed on appeal.

9.6 Erection of indoor arena (extension of time limit of planning permission 18696) (30549) granted on 17 March 1986 (not Implemented).

9.7 Addition of lean-to extension to existing stable block (63893) refused on 10 February 1999.

9.8 Stable block (65410) refused on 10 February 1999.

9.9 Service of enforcement notice on 17 February 2000 in respect of two stable blocks. Smaller stable block allowed on appeal on 26 September 2000. Larger stable block removed.

9.10 Certificate of Lawfulness granted on 12 February 2002 for use of clubhouse for the organisation of equestrian events and day to day management of the farm and the use of an area of hardstanding for the parking of vehicles used in the day to day management of the farm, livery uses, equestrian events and activities. Certificates of Lawfulness were refused on 12 February 2002 (73232) for manufacture, retail, hire and storage of equestrian show jumps, the operation of a building and steel fabrication contractors business and for the siting of a metal container for storage

62 purposes.

9.11 Service of two enforcement notices on 11 March 2002 relating to the use of the site as a building and steel fabrication contractors business and related activities and use of part of clubhouse as an office and in respect of the erection of a steel container and close boarded fence to create a storage compound.

9.12 Certificate of Lawfulness granted on appeal for use of barn for manufacture, retail sale and hiring out of equestrian show jumps granted on appeal 26 March 2003. Container allowed on appeal 26 March 2003.

9.13 Service of Enforcement Notice in respect of use of part of clubhouse as self contained unit of accommodation on 21 August 2003. Complied with 28 May 2004.

9.14 Certificate of Lawfulness for use of clubhouse as self contained unit of accommodation (79200) refused on 1 December 2003.

9.15 Replacement barn/workshop (91197) refused on 3 April 2007.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Langford Farm is a mixed agricultural and equestrian property of approximately 4.3 hectares. Access is via a narrow unclassified lane. Buildings on site comprise a dwelling house to the south of the site. Opposite and to the east of the dwelling are two agricultural buildings, a stable block and a building which was authorised to be used for the manufacture and sale, hire and storage of equestrian show jumps. To the north of these buildings is a clubhouse and to the north of that is the main arena which has been used for many years to host equestrian events. To the south, and west of the main arena are grassed areas which were used as warm up areas for horses taking part in events. A similar area existed to the north of the main arena. However in late 2006 work was undertaken in this area to create a more formal manege, and it is this manege for which retrospective planning permission is now sought.

10.2 The manege lies some distance from the dwelling but formed a natural extension of the previous equestrian activity, being adjacent to the main arena. A wooded area, Jacobs Copse, lies immediately to the north and east of the manege. To the west of the manege is an open field. To the south west of the manege is the dwelling at Langford Farm and further to the south west are a number of residential properties which are situated opposite what was used as the access to the main arena. These dwellings are some 240 metres away from the manege.

10.3 The entire property has been used for equestrian events for many years and as noted above, has a considerable planning

63 history that includes previous enforcement actions. The activities undertaken by previous owners have had a harmful impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers who have had to contend with numerous vehicle movements to and from the property.

10.4 The property has recently been sold and the new owners propose to cease the previous equestrian use and use the property for their personal enjoyment only. They own three horses and may purchase another in the future. It is proposed to restore the areas previously used as an arena and warm up areas to grassed paddocks for the grazing of their own horses. The owner has advised that a manege of this size is essential to training horses for show jumping and dressage and also to provide a safe area for her family to ride. The return of this property to private use would result in an improvement in the overall appearance of the property and the amenity of neighbouring property owners.

10.5 Policy NF-R8 states that outdoor maneges will be permitted provided that they do not result in any detrimental impact on the landscape and ecology of the New Forest and they are not floodlit. The manege is not easily visible in the landscape nor is it situated in an ecologically sensitive area. Regarding floodlighting, it is recommended that a condition prohibiting floodlighting be imposed. The Authority would normally encourage any manege proposed to be sited in close proximity to the dwelling, however in this case although the manege is situated some 200 metres from the dwelling it is unobtrusive in the landscape and will not impact detrimentally on adjacent properties. If the manege were sited in close proximity to the dwelling it would be more visible and more likely to impact on the amenity of adjacent residential properties.

10.6 The manege is set in approximately one metre from the northern and eastern boundaries of the property, thus "pulling it away" from the woodland and allowing access around the manege within the applicant's property. When viewed from the south of the previous "main arena" the manege is hardly visible in the landscape. The manege is tucked into and set against woodland and its retention will not result in any adverse visual impact either to neighbouring properties or the wider conservation area.

10.7 The drainage authority has raised a concern regarding the possibility of water from the site entering the Bartley main river which is at capacity. The manege slopes slightly from north to south. Open drainage ditches run along the southern and eastern boundaries of the manege and then discharge into a pond in the south eastern corner of the manege where water is held and seeps into the ground. It is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring all water emanating from the manege to be dealt with on site and for details of the soakaway system for the manege to be submitted to and approved by the Authority.

64 10.8 The manege is situated adjacent to Jacobs Copse, a SINC which is an ancient semi-natural woodland. The ecologist's concerns are set out in 7.2 above. It is recommended that an informative be included in respect of possible protected species on site. Any possible drainage into the Copse can be controlled by means of the proposed condition recommended in the previous paragraph.

10.9 It is considered that the retention of this manege for the personal use of the owner would help to facilitate a less intensive use of the site to the benefit of the surrounding area and local residents.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Grant Subject to Conditions

Condition(s) 1. The manege shall be used only for the exercising of horses belonging to or under the control of the owner of the land edged blue on the approved plans, and shall not be used for any commercial riding or training purposes or as an equestrian show arena.

Reason: The use of the manege on a commercial basis would cause harm by virtue of increased levels of general activity as well as riding activity, and this would be contrary to policy NF-R8 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration

2. No floodlighting shall be installed to illuminate the manege hereby approved unless express planning permission has first been granted.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the countryside and the amenities of nearby residential properties in accordance with policy NF-R8 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

3. Within three months of the granting of planning permission, details of the means of disposal of surface water from the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. All water must be dealt with on site and no water shall be passed to any ditch or watercourse as these will run to the Bartley main river which is at capacity.

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

Informative(s):

1. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the possible presence of species protected by law. The absence of such species cannot be assumed and working methods and practices associated with development should show due regard to protected species. The applicant is advised to take advice

65 from appropriate professional advisors on scheme specific issues. General advice can be obtained from Natural England or the New Forest National Park Authority’s Ecologist, Ian Barker on 01590 646685.

66 LB 43 43 18 19 00m 00m

21.6m

112900m 112900m

Bartley Cottage

Stone

Jacobs Copse

Stone

28 28

Track

112700m 112700m

Track 43 43 18 19 00m 00m Item: 11 New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 09/94188/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

67 FB

Ford

Planning Development Control Committee - 21 July 2009 Report Item 12

Application No: 09/93929/LDCE Lawful Development Certificate Existing

Site: Brookside Barn, Canada Common Road, West Wellow, Romsey, SO51 6DH

Proposal: Application for a certificate of lawful development for an existing use of building known as Brookside Barn as a dwelling

Applicant: Mr Whiting

Case Officer: Liz Young

Parish: WELLOW

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: Test Valley Borough Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council View

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

No specific designation

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

Not applicable.

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Wellow Parish Council: Recommend refusal; the building should have been demolished when planning permission for the bungalow was granted; contrary to policy.

7. CONSULTEES

No consultations required

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 None received.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Temporary residential use of part existing building, Brookside Farm (TVS. 108/4) approved on 27 March 1981. The consent was personal to the applicants (Mr and Mrs Whiting) to enable them to occupy the building temporarily until the construction of Brookside Farm was complete. The consent relates to the same building as that of the current application.

9.2 Erection of bungalow, Brookside Farm (TVS.108/5) approved on 27 March 1981

9.3 Continuation of residential use of part of existing building (TVS 108/6) approved on 30 June 1983. This consent was subject to the same restrictions imposed on permission reference TVS 108/4 and it was noted that it was unlikely that any further extensions of time would be granted.

10. ASSESSMENT

Procedural Matters

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

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

10.3 The onus of proof in a LDC application is firmly on the applicant. The relevant test of the evidence is the "balance of probability". Such applications are normally determined by the Authority's Senior Solicitor under delegated powers. The relevant circular clearly directs that provided the applicant's evidence is sufficiently precise and unambiguous, and if the Council has no evidence to contradict or undermine the applicant's version of events, then the certificate should be granted.

10.4 Owing to the fact that the use in question relates to an independent unit of residential accommodation, the time period under consideration is four years. Although concerns raised by the Parish Council are noted, and that the residential use of the building is in breach of the condition imposed on Planning Consents 108/6 and 108/4 (in relation to the requirement for the applicant to vacate the building), recent case law demonstrates

69 that the four year period (rather than the 10 year period) will need to be considered (First Secretary of State V Arun District Council, August 2006).

Site and Background

10.5 The application relates to a former agricultural building (known as Brookside Barn) with a footprint of approximately 144 square metres. The structure has a fairly steeply pitched asbestos roof and lies adjacent to Brookside Farm, a detached residential bungalow. There is no clear boundary between the two buildings and they are both accessed off the same driveway from the highway. This access runs closely between two residential properties which front onto Canada Common and the application site is therefore not visible from any public viewpoints.

10.6 The applicant, Mr Whiting, states that he and his wife bought Brookside Farm in 1982, and obtained consent from Test Valley Borough Council in 1984 to live in the barn whilst the bungalow they currently live in was being built. The consent expired in 1984. Between then and 2003, the building has been used for storage and occupied intermittently (including three years by the applicant's son). Since 2003, the applicant states that the barn has been used as a single family dwelling in its own right.

10.7 The application seeks to demonstrate that the barn, a former agricultural building, has been occupied as a separate dwelling continuously for the last four years. The accommodation comprises a relatively spacious living / kitchen / dining area, a bathroom and three bedrooms.

Evidence

10.8 Three statutory declarations have been submitted in support of this application. The first of these is from the applicant, who states that the building benefits from an electricity meter, a septic tank, hot water (electric immersion heater) and hot water cylinder, storage heating and wood burning store. The declaration also states that the building has been occupied continuously since November 2003. The second declaration is provided by the current occupant of the application building, Mr Taylor. Mr Taylor moved in on 14 May 2007 with his wife (niece of the applicant). Mr Taylor pays his council tax on the building to Test Valley Borough Council, whilst water and electricity are paid to the applicant. Mrs Taylor also provides a declaration, and has also occupied the barn since May 2007. They both occupy the whole building.

10.9 A set of tenancy agreements in respect of the application building also accompany the application, for a Miss Griffiths for a six month period dating from 1 November 2003, for a Mr Patching

70 and family of five people for 12 months from 1 April 2005 and finally an agreement for the current occupants from 14 May 2007 for a period of 12 months. Extracts from the rent book are also provided, dating from November 2003 until November 2007.

10.10 Two council tax bills are provided, the first of which was paid by Miss Griffiths between June 2004 and February 2005 and the second by Mr and Mrs Patching between April and May 2007. Both bills are made out to Brookside Barn, with the Council Tax banding stated as "A".

10.11 In addition to this, two items of correspondence are provided. These comprise a copy of a letter date 14 February 2005 from Mrs Griffiths to the applicant, handing in her notice on Brookside Barn, and a letter from Mr Patching to the applicant, also handing in his notice on the property.

Other considerations

10.12 At the time of the site visit a full internal inspection of the building was carried out. The building was evidently occupied at the time and all fixtures and fittings were more than enough to enable the permanent and independent occupation of the building. There is no evidence which conflicts with the applicant's case. Whilst concerns raised by the Parish Council are noted, it would not be appropriate to consider the merits of the residential occupation of the building or whether or not it would comply with the requirements of planning policy. Although there may have been a requirement on past consents for the building to be removed, there is no evidence of any form of enforcement notice to that effect.

Conclusion

10.13 It is considered that all the evidence provided satisfactorily demonstrates that the building known as Brookside Barn has been occupied as an independent dwelling and that there is no reliance upon the principal building, Brookside Farm. In the absence of any conflicting evidence it is therefore considered that a certificate of lawfulness should be issued.

11. RECOMMENDATION

That a Certificate of Lawful Use (Existing) be issued for use of Brookside Barn as an independent dwelling

71 42 42 88 90 Clover Cottage 00m 00m 89

Bramble Tye Heathmoor Sunnyside Lowlands

Halloween

117500m 117500m

36.3m

Carrig House Pond Brookside Farm

Maple Tree House

Stone 74 74 Cattle Grid

Old Boundary

Farm

Stone

117300m 117300m

Canada Lodge 42 42 90 88 89 00m 00m Item: 12 New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 09/93929/LDCE South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600Pine View Fax: 01590 646666

72 CS 35.1m BS

Rowan Mead NEW FOREST NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY

PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21 JULY 2009

PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION: BRAMLEY HEDGE, LATCHMORE DROVE, LANDFORD (MR OAKLEY AND MRS ROGERS): CASE NUMBER 05/6309

Report by: Sandy Tolmay, Senior Monitoring and Enforcement Officer.

SUMMARY

1. This report concerns the continued siting and residential occupation of an unauthorised mobile home which has been stationed on the above property.

2. An enforcement notice has been served requiring the removal of the residential mobile home stationed on the site.

3. The owner and occupier have been prosecuted twice in the Lyndhurst Magistrates Court for failing to comply with the enforcement notice within the required time and have pleaded guilty each time. The mobile home still remains on the land affected by the relevant enforcement notices and continues to be used for residential purposes. While the Authority might propose direct action, in this case the mobile home is the occupants’ only residence and their human rights must be taken into consideration when considering the next steps to be taken to enforce compliance with the enforcement notice.

4. The purpose of this report therefore is to seek Members’ approval to apply for an Injunction against the persons detailed above in order to secure compliance with the enforcement notice.

BACKGROUND

5.1 On 20 July 2005 Salisbury District Council, (the predecessor local planning authority), issued an enforcement notice relating to land at the field off Latchmore Drove, Landford, Salisbury. The enforcement notice was served on Mr Kevin Oakley who also received the copy of the notice addressed to Mrs P Rogers.

5.2 The Enforcement notice required:

(i) the cessation of the use of the land as a caravan site for the stationing and residential occupation of a mobile home (ii) the removal of the mobile home from the land (iii) the removal of the septic tank, oil tank, and timber fencing from the land (iv) the removal of all resulting demolition materials arising from steps 2 and 3 from the land.

5.3 The cessation of the unauthorised use of the land as a caravan site was due

73 to be complied with by 19 November 2005, and the removal of the mobile home and all other items detailed in requirements 3 and 4 of the enforcement notice were due to be complied with by 19 December 2005

5.4 An appeal was lodged against the enforcement notice by Kevin Oakley on 3 August 2005. The appeal was lodged on the grounds that:

there had not been a breach of planning control planning permission should be granted for the retention of the mobile home on the site the steps required to comply with the notice were excessive, and that the time in which to comply with the enforcement notice was too short.

5.5 The appeal was dismissed on 28 February 2006 and the enforcement notice was upheld subject to a variation which extended the compliance period in the notice for all requirements to six months.

5.6 The enforcement notice as upheld on appeal took effect on 28 February 2006, the date of the Inspector's appeal decision letter, and the requirements of the enforcement notice should have been complied with on or before 28 August 2006.

5.7 On 1 April 2006 when the Authority took on its planning powers, the case was transferred from Salisbury District Council to the Authority.

5.8 On 14 March 2007 Mr Oakley and Mrs Rogers submitted a planning application for the retention of a mobile home for a horticultural worker for a temporary period of 3 years. The application was refused on 17 May 2007.

5.9 On 18 May 2007 the Authority wrote to Mr Oakley and Mrs Rogers regarding non-compliance with the enforcement notice and advising that the Authority would begin prosecution proceedings. The letter invited them to partake in an official interview. No reply was received and neither party accepted the invitation to be interviewed.

5.10 On 7 June 2007 a site visit was carried out and it was observed that the enforcement notice had not been complied with as the mobile home had not been removed from the property and was being used for residential purposes, with Mr Oakley residing in the walked out of the mobile home.

5.11 On 31 July 2007 the site was again visited. The mobile home remained on site and continued to be used for residential purposes.

5.12 As the enforcement notice had not been complied with Mr Oakley and Mrs Rogers were summonsed on 14 September 2007 to appear in the Lyndhurst Magistrates court.

5.13 On 29 October 2007 Mr Oakley and Mrs Rogers attempted to submit a further planning application in respect of the retention of a mobile home for an agricultural worker. The Authority however declined to determine the application under the terms of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as it appeared to the Authority that the application was for the same mobile home

74 and the proposal was no different to that dismissed on appeal by the Secretary of State.

5.14 At their court appearance on 7 April 2008 guilty pleas were entered by Mr Oakley and Mrs Rogers. The bench took a particularly severe view of this matter commenting that they had had every opportunity of complying with the notice and it was apparent that this was a flagrant breach and there was an absence of mitigation. Each party was fined £2000 and ordered to pay £1000 costs.

5.15 On 14 April 2008 the Authority wrote to Mr Oakley and Mrs Rogers advising that the mobile home on the site was unauthorised and could not remain on site. They were requested to notify the Authority in writing, within 14 days of the date of the letter, of their intentions. They were advised that if the mobile home was not removed from the land within a reasonable period of time, further legal action would be considered. No response was received to this letter.

5.16 On 23 October 2008 the site was visited again. Neither Mr Oakley nor Mrs Rogers were present. The mobile home remained on the site and it was evident that it continued to be used for residential purposes.

5.17 As no attempt had been made to comply with the enforcement notice Mr Oakley and Mrs Rogers were again summoned to appear in the Lyndhurst Magistrates court.

5.18 On 25 March 2009 Mr Oakley and Mrs Rogers both appeared in court and pleaded guilty. They were each fined £1500 plus £400 costs.

5.19 At court Mr Oakley advised that they had actively been trying to sell the property and had a letter from someone who was interested in buying it. A letter was handed to the magistrates. Mr Oakley advised that he had not taken legal advice, had made a mistake and was sorry for the trouble caused.

5.20 The Authority wrote to Mr Oakley and Mrs Rogers on 27 March 2009 requesting again that they advise the Authority in writing, within 14 days, of their intentions and by what date they expected to be able to remove the mobile home from the site and comply with the requirements of the enforcement notice. They were advised that if the mobile home was not removed from the land within a reasonable period of time, further legal action would be pursued.

5.21 No response to this letter was received and to date no effort has been made to remove the mobile home from the site.

CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 The Authority has a statutory duty to ensure that new development does not damage the natural beauty, character and special qualities of the New Forest National Park. To allow the above persons to remain in occupation of the mobile homes seriously undermines the Authority’s ability to take action against similar inappropriate, non-essential development in the countryside

75 within the National Park.

6.2 The siting of the mobile homes and the occupants’ illegal residential occupation of the same continues to detract from the special qualities and landscape character of the National Park.

6.3 The continued court summonses have clearly not deterred the parties in their flagrant and prolonged breach of planning controls. The Authority and the Council before it have exhausted all opportunities for a negotiated compliance. There really is no alternative to securing compliance other than to refer the matter back to Court for an injunction.

6.4 The consequences of non-compliance with an Injunction is a very serious matter which carries the possibility of imprisonment. It would however appear to be the only remedy to obtain compliance with the enforcement notices.

6.5 Section 187B of the Town and country Planning Act 1990 enables the Local planning authority, if it is considered necessary or expedient, to apply to the courts for an injunction to restrain a breach of planning control. The application may be made to either the High Court or the County Court. Although the costs of an application are likely to be greater in the High Court, it is considered that this is the more appropriate venue in which to commence proceedings. It is not possible to give an estimate of the likely timescale involved in seeking an injunction as this is dependant on many factors, one of which is the Court’s own workload and existing commitments.

6.6 Regarding costs the likely legal costs to the Authority to take this matter to a full hearing are those of solicitor and Counsel who would be asked to advise on and conduct the advocacy. Hitherto, legal services have been provided to the Authority by Hampshire County Council under a Service Level Agreement which is continuing pending the entry in to a new Partnership Agreement by the parties. The solicitors’ costs incurred by the Authority in any injunction proceedings would be covered under the terms of the Service Level Agreement as a “Core Service. It is difficult to provide an estimate for the cost of Counsel to conduct the advocacy. Initial enquiries would suggest a cost of up to £4500.

6.7 The general rule of litigation is that “the loser pays the winner’s costs”. If the Authority’s application for an injunction is successful then it would be expected that the Court would order our legal costs to be met by the other side. However, if the Authority’s application is unsuccessful, then the likely order would be that we pay not only our own costs (as set out above) but the costs of the other side as well.

HUMAN RIGHTS

7.1 It is accepted that the Authority will be interfering with the parties human rights in its pursuit of enforcement action against their home (Article 8 [right to respect for a private and family life] of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights). The question is whether this interference is justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 as being “in accordance with the law”,

76 pursuing a legitimate aim or aims and as being “necessary in a democratic society” in pursuit of that aim or aims.

7.2 The mobile homes are clearly unauthorised and in breach of planning control. The Authority’s “interference” is therefore in accordance with the law in so far as the Authority has acted in accordance with the powers conferred upon it by the Town and Country Planning Act. The Authority’s actions have been upheld on appeal and in the Courts.

7.3 The enforcement of planning control is in the wider public interest of the community by preventing inappropriate and harmful development within a very special environment of national significance, the New Forest National Park. It is a legitimate aim within a democratic society to protect the “rights of others” through the preservation of the environment.

7.4 In all three of the cases the parties concerned have made no attempt to comply with the enforcement notices. To sanction non compliance would be inappropriate. The parties have been consistently advised by the Authority that it would pursue any non-compliance with the enforcement notices. For all these reasons, it is considered that the interference with the parties human rights in this case through further action to secure an Injunction is justified, reasonable and in the public interest.

RECOMMENDATION

That officers be authorised to refer Mr Oakley and Mrs Rogers’ non compliance with the enforcement notice to court and to request an injunction requiring the parties to comply with the enforcement notice.

77 42 42

54 55 The Nook 00m 00m

Latchmore Cottage

Heath Copse

Bisley

119300m Tel Ex 119300m

New Cottage

Yew Tree Cottage

Woodside

Brambly Hedge

Planners Folly

119200m 119200m

Aunts Cottage

Nant Peris

Lane End Farm

Track 42 42 54 55 00m 00m Item: 13 New Forest National Park Authority Ref: EN/05/6309 South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666