Report Item 6 – 26/00543/FULL – Cardan House, Romsey Road, Cadnam, Southampton SO40 2NN

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Development Plan

2. POLICIES

Development Plan Designations

Flood Zone

Principal Development Plan Policies

• Policy SP1 Supporting sustainable development
• Policy DP2 General development principles
• Policy SP6 The natural environment
• Policy DP12 Flood risk
• Policy SP17 Local distinctiveness
• Policy DP18 Design principles
• Policy DP36 Extensions to dwellings

Supplementary Planning Documents

• Design Guide (2022)
• Copythorne Parish Design Statement SPD (2025)

National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (NPPF)

• Sec. 2. Achieving sustainable development
• Sec. 4. Decision-making
• Sec. 12. Achieving well-designed places
• Sec. 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
• Sec. 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

3. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

4. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Copythorne Parish Council: Recommend permission but will accept a delegated decision; the exceptional circumstances outlined by the applicant justify the granting of permission for alterations requested notwithstanding the limitations of DP36

5. CONSULTEES

None required.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

None received.

7. RELEVANT HISTORY

• Application to vary condition 7 of planning permission reference 11/96218 to allow retention of the mobile home (15/00921) refused on 26 January 2016
• Application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for Proposed siting of a mobile home for ancillary accommodation (15/00920) raise no objection on 20 January 2016
• Erection of replacement dwelling (removal of mobile home) (11/96218) granted on 21 April 2011
• Erection of replacement dwelling (Removal of mobile home) (10/95572) granted on 08 November 2010
• Outline application for detached house (removal of mobile home) - principle and access, layout and scale to be considered (09/94249) refused on 20 August 2009 (Appeal against refusal dismissed on 18 February 2010)
• Application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for existing use of land for use of Building as Dwelling (09/93934) raise no objection on 28 May 2009
• Dwelling; new access (07/92438) refused on 19 March 2008
• Dwelling (07/92077) withdrawn on 16 January 2008
• 2 Detached dwellings (06/90523) refused on 29 September 2006

8. ASSESSMENT

Application Site

8.1 The application site (just over 0.1 hectares in size) comprises a detached two storey dwelling, its residential curtilage and associated access (and some adjacent land) which runs off the A31 (the Romsey Road). This access is also a public right of way which runs to the south-west of the site.

8.2 The dwelling was built following the granting of planning consent in 2011 (planning permission reference: 11/96218). A mobile home (associated with the neighbouring site, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”) lies to the south-east of the site. This neighbouring property is a retail premises which fronts directly onto Romsey Road.

8.3 Residential properties lie to the north-east and south-west and the site backs onto a site known as "The Old Brickyard", which appears to have had a history of storage uses.

8.4 The majority of the site lies within Environment Agency Flood Zones 2 and 3.

8.5 For the purposes of adopted planning policy, the site lies in open countryside.

Proposed Development

8.6 Consent is sought to add a single storey extension to the rear (north-east) elevation of the dwelling. The external facing brickwork would match the existing dwelling. Roofing materials have not been specified.

Planning Background

8.7 By way of background, the existing dwelling was permitted (under planning permission reference 11/96218) as a replacement of a mobile home under the predecessor Local Plan (the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010)). This consent was permitted as an alternative design to a previously approved development (planning permission reference 10/95572). The relevant policies contained within this former Core Strategy (and the current Local Plan) did not support the general principle of replacing mobile homes with permanent dwellings. The officer report in respect of application 10/95572 acknowledged that the development was not supported by the planning policies in place at the time, but made reference to a previous application (to replace the mobile home with a permanent dwelling) which was refused and dismissed on appeal (application reference 09/94249). The main reasoning for dismissing the appeal related to the concern that the proposal was “unduly close and awkwardly related to the adjoining dwelling “Belle Vue””. Notwithstanding the fact that this appeal had been dismissed, the Inspector at the time accepted the principle of a replacement dwelling for the mobile home due to the site specific circumstances of the applicant.

8.8 The general principle of replacing the mobile home was supported as it was concluded that the mobile home offered cramped and relatively poor living conditions – stated to be a particular concern because of the severe health and learning difficulties of the Applicant’s daughter’s young son. It was stated that it was not possible to install specialist equipment in the mobile home due to the general lack of space. The Inspector also concluded that the proposal represented a “modest consolidation and upgrading of the existing residential development at Cadnam”.

8.9 Both the subsequent permissions 10/95572 and 11/96218 were granted under the previous New Forest National Park Core Strategy (2010) policies and sought to limit the overall internal floor area of the dwelling to 120 square metres and included a condition which removed the right to carry out any further enlargements under permitted development rights. A justification for this approach was provided within the officer report to planning permission reference 10/95572 which stated:

“In terms of its size, there was some concern that this would be too large in respect of the mobile home it was replacing, which could be considered a small dwelling, and also the terms of policy NF-H4. That policy states that replacement dwellings should only extend to 100m² in total where it is replacing a small dwelling, ie up to 80m². The policy does however allow a replacement dwelling of no more than 120m² in exceptional circumstances. The initial plans indicated a dwelling in excess of 120m² and no indication where the additional floorspace was required to serve the particular needs of the applicant. Amended plans were received reducing the floorspace and accompanied by a letter setting out the justification. That information clearly demonstrated the need for the additional floorspace, and it was therefore considered that dwelling would meet the circumstances in respect of this applicant and that its size would be acceptable”

8.10 Having regard to this background, the existing dwelling would be considered as a “small dwelling” for the purposes of Policy DP36 of the current Local Plan.

Consideration

8.11 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2024) require that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.12 The main issues to consider for the purposes of this current application are the general principle of adding a further enlargement to the existing dwelling (given its status as a “small dwelling” for the purposes of Policy DP36), alongside impacts upon the character of the area, neighbouring amenity and flood risk. The characteristics of the site and nature of the development proposed are such that the proposal would not give rise to significant impacts in relation to biodiversity, trees or highway safety.

Principle of Development

8.13 With regards to the general principle of extending the existing dwelling, as identified above, the original dwelling on site was previously defined as a “small dwelling” for the purposes of the predecessor local plan. This policy has now been superseded Policy DP36. This policy continues with the same definition of “small dwellings”, and states that “in the case of small dwellings …the extension must not result in a total internal habitable floorspace exceeding 100 square metres.” It then states, “In exceptional circumstances a larger extension may be permitted to meet the genuine family needs of an occupier who works in the immediate locality” (but then sets out that in such instances the total internal habitable floorspace of an extended dwelling must not exceed 120 square metres).

8.14 The dwelling at present has a gross in internal floorspace of 120 square metres and therefore any further enlargement would take it beyond the limit which exceptionally applies under Policy DP36. It is also not evident that the proposal is required to accommodate an occupier who works in the immediate locality. The general principle of the proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy DP36.

8.15 Given the identified conflict with the Development Plan, it would also be necessary to have regard to any relevant material planning considerations under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

8.16 It is stated that the Applicant’s son is currently living in the ground floor bedroom, but that this is no longer adequate for his health needs, which are stated to be changing over time. Full details of his living requirements have been provided and it has been evidenced that he requires a specialist bed and adapted bathroom which together require a larger floor area. There is also a requirement for additional carers and family members to stay overnight as his mother (his main carer) also suffers from evidenced health conditions which limit her ability to care for him. The option of installing a lift has been considered but dismissed due to concerns in relation to both fire risk and the specific needs of the Applicant’s son, which would essentially put him at greater risk if he was to occupy the upper floor area, both in the event of a fire but also in normal day-to-day circumstances.

8.17 The proposed extension would allow for the expansion and reorganisation of the ground floor primarily to provide a better-equipped bedroom and an accessible bathroom to suit his needs (which are stated to have changed since the original permission). It has also been indicated that, due to the timing and nature of his diagnosis, it would not have been possible to foresee his current accommodation needs at the time of the original application. In this case, the proposed layout would meet these objectives, through providing a significantly enlarged bathroom and WC and a new larger bedroom (occupying the former lounge area). The resulting loss of living accommodation (which would then be reduced down to just a kitchen area) at ground floor level would then be addressed through the proposed extension. It is therefore considered that sufficient justification has been provided for the proposed extension having particular regard to the day-to-day living requirements of the occupants in this particular case.

8.18 Paragraph 96 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which enable and support healthy lives, through both promoting good health and preventing ill-health, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs. This represents a further material consideration which weighs in favour of granting planning permission.

8.19 Overall, it is concluded that, notwithstanding the identified conflict with the development plan, the general principle of the proposed development is acceptable, having regard to the relevant material considerations in this case, which are specific to this case and not easily replicable on other sites in the National Park.

Design and Impact on Landscape and Character of Area

8.20 With regards to impacts upon local character and landscape, given the modest scale of the development and its location towards the rear of the site, it is considered that it would be appropriate in terms its scale, appearance, form, siting and layout. For the same reason, it is also considered to be contextually appropriate and would not harm key visual features, landscape setting or other valued components of the landscape. Given that the proposal relates to the enlargement of an existing dwelling and lies within a cluster of established development, it is also considered that it would not give rise to a harmful loss of tranquillity through unacceptable environmental impacts on the National Park and its special qualities.

8.21 There are no notable trees or natural features within or adjacent to the site which would be directly impacted by the proposed development.

8.22 On this basis, no conflict with Policies SP1, DP2, DP18, DP36 and SP15 has been identified.

Neighbouring Amenity

8.23 With regards to impacts upon neighbouring amenity, the proposal would be visible from the immediate neighbour to the northeast (Belle Vue). However, given the modest height of the extension, its degree of separation from the boundary with the neighbour and the presence of intervening features, it is considered that it would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on amenity in terms of visual intrusion, overlooking or shading. The single storey extension proposed would be well distanced from Uncle Tom’s cabin to the south and would not be readily visible from within this site due to its modest roofline. On this basis, no conflict with Policy DP2 has been identified.

Flood Risk

8.24 As identified above, the majority of the site lies within Environment Agency Flood Zones 2 and 3. However, the majority of the footprint of the proposed extension would be located within Flood Zone 1 (lowest probability of flooding).

8.25 The proposal comprises "minor development" in flood risk terms. The application has been accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment which accords with Standing Advice from the Environment Agency.

8.26 It has been confirmed that floor levels of the proposed extension will not be set lower than existing levels, and that flood proofing of the proposed development has been considered and incorporated (with specific resilience measures proposed within the flood risk assessment). These measures can reasonably be secured through conditions.

8.27 On this basis, it is concluded that, in accordance with Local Plan Policy DP12 and paragraph 164 of the NPPF, the proposal would not lead to increased flood risk and would avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change.

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)

8.28 It is recognised that biodiversity net gain is required under the statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This seeks to ensure development proposals deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat.

8.29 In this instance, it has been established that the proposal would be exempt from mandatory BNG under Regulation 5 of the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024 as it comprises a householder application within the meaning of article 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

Conclusion

8.30 In conclusion, it has been identified that the proposed development would be in conflict with Policy DP36 and the Local Plan objective of maintaining a stock of smaller sized dwellings. However, in this instance, the proposal is justified on the basis that it is required to meet the day-to-day living needs of the longstanding occupants of the dwelling. Having regard to this and the NPPF objective of addressing identified local health and well-being needs, it is concluded that in this particular case there are material considerations presented which justify the granting of planning permission.

8.31 The very unique circumstances in this case are such that the granting of planning permission would not set any harmful precedent for other planning decisions across the New Forest National Park or undermine the policies contained within the adopted Development Plan.

8.32 It has also been demonstrated that the proposed development would not give rise to significant harmful impacts upon the character of the area, flood risk or neighbouring amenity.

8.33 It is therefore recommended that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions.

9. 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. Development shall only be carried out in accordance with the following drawings and documents:

   • Block and Location Plan – Reference 2-DCC-25
   • Floorplans and Elevations – Reference 1-DCC-25
   • Flood risk assessment (Southern Planning Practice April 2026)
   • Curtilage Plan – Reference 5-DCC-25

   No alterations to the approved development shall be made unless otherwise agreed in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority.

   Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the building in accordance with Policies SP17, DP2, DP12 and DP18 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016- 2036 (August 2019).

3. The external facing brickwork to be used in the development shall match those used on the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority.

   Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the building in accordance with Policy DP2 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016 - 2036 (August 2019).

Informative(s):

1. Please be advised that the red line on drawing number 2-DCC-25 is representative only of the application site and not the extent of residential curtilage associated with the applicaiton dwelling.

Deerleap
Cabin
Cottage
Silver Magpies
Uncle Toms
Hazelwood Cottage
Myrtle
Oak
Birch
Berene
Chalvington House Laburnum Cottage
Ingleby
Roseberry
Camellia
Wilverley
Cottars
Hillview
Hollybrook
Ramore
Cottage
Augustine
Lynton
The
Robins
Cottage
1
The Spinney Teresa
Little Orchard
Old Oak Farm
Treeside
Oakwood Saguenay
Acorns
Belle Vue
Delmead
The Gables
Rosemoor
Cottage
Orca
The Caravan
The
Old
Brickyard
Lydlynch
A 31
26.2m 00m 98 42 00m 99 42 429800m 429900m
113900m
40
114100m
113900m
40
114100m
New Forest National Park Authority
Lymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington, SO41 9ZG
Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666
1:1250
26/00543FULL
© Crown copyright and database rights 2026 Ordnance Survey 100014703
Date: 05/08/2026
Ref:
Scale: