Report Item 3 – 26/00901/FULL – Belmont, Burford Lane, Brockenhurst SO42 7TN

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Called in by New Forest District Councillor

2. POLICIES

Development Plan Designations

Conservation Area

Principal Development Plan Policies

• DP2 General development principles
• DP18 Design principles
• DP36 Extensions to dwellings
• SP4 Spatial strategy
• SP6 The natural environment
• SP14 Renewable energy
• SP15 Tranquillity
• SP16 The historic and built environment
• SP17 Local distinctiveness

Supplementary Planning Documents

Design Guide SPD

NPPF

• Sec 3 - Decision-making policies
• Sec 4 - Achieving sustainable development
• Sec 12- Making effective use of land
• Sec 14 – Achieving well-designed places
• Sec 19 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
• Sec 20 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

3. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

4. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Brockenhurst Parish Council: Recommend permission, for the reasons listed below, but would accept the decision reached by the National Park Authority’s Officers under their delegated powers.

Comment:

Councillors felt that the design of the property was greatly improved, making the dwelling more attractive and in keeping with the area. There were, however, some slight concerns about the massing of the area and the addition of a ‘juliet’ balcony.

5. CONSULTEES

Building Design and Conservation Officer: Unable to support

Whilst not against the principle of a replacement extension, the current design would cause harm to the character of the conservation area.

Tree Officer: No objection. There are no important amenity trees threatened by this proposal.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

Cllr Adam Parker (NFDC Cllr) - Material grounds for calling this in are based on the following:

1. Enhancing the Conservation Area

   The current 1950s single-storey extension and the cluster of flat-roofed outbuildings are visually not very appealing, and due an upgrade. The proposed design actually tidies the site up significantly by replacing those ad-hoc sheds and the old flat-roof garage with a much more coherent layout. Replacing the three ad-hoc outbuildings with a single carport allows for the integration of an air-source heat pump, a solar array, and EV charging. This would be a real sustainability win for a conservation area.

2. Proportionate Design and Scale

   The officer was concerned the original cottage would be swallowed up, but looking at the site and the plans, the new extension is set well back from the front and the roof is noticeably lower. Using dark timber cladding for the new section is a really practical way to make it obvious what is the original red-brick historic cottage and what is new. It feels like a very respectful way to treat a non-designated heritage asset. The plans also reinstate traditional window proportions and buff brick quoins to the original building, which undoes previous unsympathetic alterations. As a whole, these plans would secure the long-term viability of the house.

3. Neighbour Amenity

   The applicants have clearly thought about their neighbours. Rather than building right on the boundary like the current structure does, they are stepping the new extension away from it. The plans also demonstrate that the new rooflines will not block the light to their neighbour's ground-floor windows.

Five letters of objections on the following grounds:

• Proposal constitutes a new build rather than a mere extension.
• ‘Modest domestic scale’ promised in the application is not reflected in the plans.
• A major new build within a few metres of neighbouring properties.
• Extensive modern cladding and large gabled forms risk making the extension visually dominant.
• Detract significantly from the desirable nature of the area.
• This is a rural setting which is quite unique. Heat pumps and car ports are at odds with the setting.
• Potential noise generated by an air-source heat pump, such noise could be disruptive.
• Substantial increase in its height, as this would render it more conspicuous adversely affect the natural light entering neighbouring properties.
• Substantial two-storey structure further to the rear, creating significantly greater height, bulk and massing.
• More imposing form.
• Loss of light.
• Overbearing impact on neighbour amenity space.
• Increase overshadowing and potentially reduce daylight to neighbouring amenity space.
• Overlooking and privacy concerns due to new elevated viewpoints.
• A more sympathetic use of brick and slate would better reflect its character.
• Represents a substantial overdevelopment of a prominent site within the Brockenhurst Conservation Area and the wider New Forest National Park.
• Proposal fails to reflect the architectural scale and local distinctiveness of this surrounding area.
• The car port would appear overly dominant within the street scene and harm the character and neighbourhood amenity.
• Enlargement of the existing garage or new car port could result in the loss of an established and attractive tree.
• Loss of natural screening.
• Visual impact caused by the presence of the solar panels being prominent towards our outlook and reflected sunlight into our home and garden
• Error with plan titles.
• Support the principle of improving and extending their home but object to the extent of this proposal.
• What access arrangements are required for the building works?
• Southern Water access point and water meter are located directly in front of the garage along the Park Close frontage.

7. RELEVANT HISTORY

Erection of a garage (replacement) (NFDC/83/23847) granted on 21 April 1983

Alterations and additions to existing dwelling (NFR/XX/06533) granted on 22 May 1958

8. ASSESSMENT

Application Site

8.1 The dwelling sits within an irregular plot on the north side of Burford Lane within the defined New Forest village of Brockenhurst and Brockenhurst Conservation Area. The surrounding area comprises of residential development of varying plot sizes. Burford Lane has a number of individually important buildings and many of the dwellings in the immediate vicinity are Non-Designated Heritage Assets (NDHA). Belmont is a NDHA that has had some alterations since the late 1950s and there is a commercial garage on its east side.

Proposed Development

8.2 This application seeks planning permission for one and two storey extensions, roof alterations and two new porches. The proposal would alter the principal elevation currently facing south-east, however, the new frontage would be re-orientated to face the south-west.

8.3 The proposed materials for the extensions would comprise of red brick and natural slate roofing with uPVC flush casement windows. There would be no changes to the hard surfacing or boundary treatments. PIR sensor lighting is proposed for the front porch, however, no specification details have been provided.

8.4 A detached, pitched roof, open fronted, two-bay garage with attached store would replace the existing flat roofed single bay garage. The replacement garage would be around 5.2m high, with an eaves height of 2.3m, 9m long, 7m wide (including the the lean-to) with a floorspace of 53.7sqm (including the lean-to). The lean-to would house an air source heat pump and would provide storage.

8.5 The roof would be dual pitched with two rooflights on the north east side and an array of solar panels would be roof mounted on the south west side. The Design, Access and Heritage Statement states that the proposed outbuilding would use red multi-facing brick, timber cladding and a natural slate roof.

Policy Context

8.6 It is the statutory duty of all English National Park Authorities to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park (being the first statutory purpose as set out in the Environment Act 1995).

8.7 Policy N4 (1) of the National Planning Policy Framework ("the NPPF") (August 2026) states that development proposals within Protected Landscapes should be limited in scale and extent and sensitively located and designed to avoid harm to the statutory purposes and special qualities of the Protected Landscape. Substantial weight should be placed on the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of Protected Landscapes, and to conserving and enhancing wildlife and cultural heritage in National Parks.

8.8 Policy DP3 of the NPPF sets out key principles for well-designed places. Policy DP3 1. states that development proposals should respond to their context (the history, character and features of their site and its setting), so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings. Policy DP3. 3. states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of this policy or relevant aspects of the principles in paragraph 2, or with any explicit design standards set out in the development plan (including those in locally-specific policies, guides, codes or masterplans). It further states that substantial weight should be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing the design quality of proposals.

8.9 Policy S4 of the NPPF refers to development within settlements - which this application site is. It states:

"1. Development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework.

2. In applying policy S4, the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects include (but are not restricted to) situations where the development proposal would:

a. Have a substantial adverse impact in relation to:

…

ii. The application of the policies in this Framework for existing recreational land and facilities (HC7), Local Green Space (HC8), areas of particular importance for biodiversity and geodiversity (N6), Protected Landscapes (N4) and development within residential curtilages (L2(1)(d)).

"c. Fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances."

8.10 Policy L2 of the NPPF states:

"1. Substantial weight should be given to the benefits where a development proposal would achieve one or more of the following:

…

Creating additional homes or floorspace within settlements by using the airspace above existing residential and commercial premises, or through sensitive redevelopment or additional development within existing plots (including, but not limited to, the addition of mansard roofs, proposals to fill gaps in the existing roof line, the introduction of higher buildings at street corners and additional units within residential curtilages). Such proposals should:

i. Be consistent with the overall street scene, other than where: it is appropriate to have larger buildings (such as at street corners, or where building upwards would not cause substantial harm to the character of a building and its surroundings); the development would not be visible from the street frontage; or where specific changes are provided for through a design code which forms part of the development plan;

ii. Maintain safe access and egress for occupiers and users, and acceptable living standards for residents and neighbours in terms of access to daylight, sunlight, privacy and external amenity space; and

iii. Where the development would involve the use of residential curtilages, not occupy more than twice the footprint of all the existing buildings on the site, and, following development, would retain at least 50% of the non-developed area within the curtilage of the existing buildings; unless additional development can be accommodated without harm to the overall character of the area, and taking into account the availability of infrastructure and the importance of locating development in sustainable locations (in accordance with policy TR3)."

8.11 Policy HE4 of the NPPF states that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource that should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. It further states that development proposals should avoid (or if not possible, minimise) harm to the significance of heritage assets, and conserve their significance.

8.12 Under Policy SP4 (Spatial Strategy) of the New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016 – 2036 (herein after referred to as the Local Plan), the principle of development within the ‘Defined Villages’ settlement boundaries as defined on the Policies Map will be supported, provided that it complies with the other relevant policies and is of a scale and nature appropriate to the character and function of the settlement.

8.13 Policy DP36 of the Local Plan sets out that extensions to existing dwellings will be permitted provided that they are appropriate to the existing dwelling and its curtilage. Paragraph 7.80 in the supporting text to this policy states that in all cases, the Authority will have regard to the scale and character of the core element of the original dwelling (rather than subsequent additions) in determining whether or not an extension is sympathetic to the dwelling.

8.14 DP37 of the Local Plan sets out that outbuildings will be permitted where they are proportionate and clearly subservient to the dwelling they are to serve in terms of their design, scale, size, height and massing. Outbuildings should be located within the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling, be required for purposes incidental to the use of the main dwelling and not providing additional habitable accommodation. They should not reduce private amenity space, including parking provision, around the dwelling to an unacceptable level.

8.15 Policy SP15 of the Local Plan sets out that new development should avoid, or provide mitigation for, proposals that will lead to noise, visual intrusion, nuisance and other unacceptable impacts upon the National Park and its special qualities.

8.16 Policy SP16 of the Local Plan sets out that development proposals will be supported where they conserve and enhance the significance or special interest of designated or non-designated heritage assets, i.e. they:

(a)(iii) make a positive contribution to, or better reveal, or enhance the appreciation of, the significance or special interest of a heritage asset or its setting; and

(iv) help secure the long-term conservation of a heritage asset. Proposals will be resisted where they would harm the significance or special interest of a heritage asset (designated or undesignated) unless any harm is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal, proportionate to the degree of harm and significance of the asset, including securing its optimum viable use.

8.17 Policy SP17 resists any development that cumulatively erodes the local character or results in a gradual suburbanising effect.

8.18 The New Forest National Park Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation stage has closed. Further details are available at Local Plan review 2025-27 - New Forest National Park. Policy DM4 of the NPPF (2026) confirms that relevant policies in emerging development plans may be given weight according to the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given). The draft plan has not yet been submitted for examination (due to take place in December 2026) and therefore, in accordance with Policy DM4 of the NPPF, limited weight can be given to its draft policies.

Consideration

8.19 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, paragraph 3 and Decision-Making Policy DM3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2026) require that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.20 The key considerations in this case are:

• The principle of the proposed development;
• The proposed design and impact on the character of the area;
• The impact on heritage assets;
• The impact on neighbour amenity;
• Ecological considerations;
• Flood risk and drainage; and
• Other material considerations.

Principle of Development

8.21 In this instance, the dwelling is within the defined settlement of Brockenhurst. Policy DP36 of the Local Plan sets out that extensions to dwellings should be appropriate to the existing dwelling and its curtilage. In all cases, the Authority will have regard to the scale and character of the core element of the original dwelling (rather than subsequent additions) in determining whether or not an extension is sympathetic to the dwelling.

8.22 The proposed extensions are not considered to be appropriate to the existing dwelling as elaborated upon in the paragraphs on design and heritage below. Whilst the principle of an extension could be acceptable, conflict with Policy S4 of the NPPF and Policy DP36 of the Local Plan have been identified due to the design of the proposals contained in this application. In addition, conflict has been identified with Policy L2 1. d. iii of the NPPF as the proposal would not comprise sensitive redevelopment or be consistent with the overall street scene.

8.23 In respect of the proposed outbuilding, with regard to Policy DP37, the proposed outbuilding would be within the residential curtilage, required for incidental purposes and does not propose habitable accommodation. Whilst almost doubled in size, in its proposed location the outbuilding would be proportionate to the size of the plot, subservient to the dwelling and would not adversely reduce residential amenity space. The replacement garage would accord with Policy DP37 in principle, subject to other considerations below.

Design and Impact on Character of Area, including Heritage Assets

8.24 Policy DP2 of the Local Plan (General development principles) seeks to ensure development proposals are appropriate and sympathetic in terms of scale, appearance, form, siting and layout, respecting the natural, built and historic environment. Chapter 4 of the Authority's Design Guide (2022) provides further guidance on appropriate design.

Paragraph 4.12 sets out that extensions should ensure the character of the original building is preserved. An extension should be in scale with the existing dwelling and always be subservient in size and height. Its form, elevation treatment and detailing should complement the original dwelling. Side extensions should not normally exceed half the width of the main house, as they are likely to appear elongated and contrived, and out of proportion to the original dwelling. Where wrap around extensions are proposed, it is possible to lose the identity of the dwelling. This is particularly important where extension(s) to locally listed building are concerned especially where they have already been the subject of incremental extension over time. Paragraph 4.13 states that the character of Heritage Assets including conservation areas and locally listed buildings (NDHA’s) should be protected.

8.25 By way of background, general pre-application advice was given before submission. The enquiry did not provide detailed plans and general advice was provided by the Authority including noting that the dwelling is a NDHA and that proposed extensions should be very carefully considered and designed appropriately in terms of size, scale and materials to respect the distinctive character and heritage of the host dwelling and wider area. In respect of size, scale and impact upon the NDHA and its surroundings, it would appear that the pre-application advisory note, Policy DP36 and its supporting text and the Design Guide have not been taken into account in the design submitted.

8.26 The 1950s extension is of no architectural merit, but it is considered to be a subservient addition in as much as it is single storey and the original core element remains discernible. Correspondence from the agent states that "75% of the original façades are retained, unchanged and architecturally legible with just 13% more of the original facade obscured than the current position". Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed extensions would replace this addition, the extensions proposed in this application are not considered to be subservient or appropriate and would not enhance the original core element.

8.27 The ridge height of the two storey extensions would be below the height of the original dwelling by 0.2m, resulting in a significant extension to the overall main ridge line which, being barely discernible, would not be subservient. Although there would be a 3.5m set-back from the principal gable end, ensuring the main view of the core element (from the south), the resulting appearance would be that of a double fronted house with an odd, recessed wall with its new frontage on the south-west side. The centred porch would be wider than the existing side element on this side. Joining the original dwelling and the extension, it would not be lightweight but incorporated into the roof form causing the front door to be off centre. The ground floor glazing on this side would be disproportionate in size to the original and the first floor window would appear awkwardly higher.

8.28 The extension and secondary porch as seen from the north-west elevation would more than double the size of the dwelling, having an imposing gabled end resulting in a built mass that would be overly dominant on this side.

8.29 On the south-east side, the dwelling would appear at odds with the original core element. The glazing has not been informed by the existing and the first floor dormer would be inappropriate in terms of size and scale. The adopted Design Guide SPD advises that dormer windows are not traditional features, and where they do occur historically, they were very small, just large enough to light the roof space. In this instance, the dormer would comprise an overly large and bulky addition as it is as tall the main ridge height of the new extension and would extend too far forward, meeting the line of the side wall creating another gable end appearance when viewed from the north east side. The north-east side would have a large amount of glazing including double doors and a juliette balcony at first floor, consequently a number of objections have been received raising issues concerning the loss of privacy and increased light pollution. The proposed extensions would result in an overdevelopment to the front and central areas of the plot. As the orientation of the dwelling would change, with the enlargement to the dwelling and the new two storey element facing the south-east boundary, this would emphasise one of two narrowing points across the site. At its nearest points, gaps of 1.6m and 2.3m between the dwelling and the boundary fence would create an overly cramped and constricted space.

8.30 Overall, the proposal would result in a substantial dwelling at odds with the general character of the area. In this instance, it is considered that the proposed extensions would be out of scale with the dwelling, and would not be appropriately subservient, and would result in the dwelling appearing excessively bulky. The dwelling and its associated outbuilding would not positively contribute to this part of the defined village. The proposed design is considered to be contrary to Policies DP2, DP18 and DP36 of the Local Plan, the Authority's Design Guide and Policy DP3 of the NPPF. Furthermore, it would cumulatively erode of the existing character of this part of the National Park contrary to Policy SP17 of the Local Plan.

8.31 In relation to the potential impact on designated and non-designated heritage assets, the site is located within the Brockenhurst Conservation Area. There is a duty imposed by Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requiring decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area and this is reflected in Policy SP16 of the adopted Local Plan.

8.32 The frontage of this locally listed building has been stripped of its vernacular finishes, however, the main part of the dwelling is still symmetrical in nature, and the core element of its cottage origins remain clearly legible in both built form and existing floorplans.

8.33 The Authority’s Building Design and Conservation Team has been consulted and have noted that this part of Waters Green is defined by its consistent architectural style, namely symmetrical, three-bay brick cottages (Belmont included), sometimes constructed back-to-back as a semi-detached pair, which over time have been permitted constrained extensions to the rear. The extensions within the proposed design overwhelm the historic core in size and mass, and due to the positioning of these extensions, the majority of the original frontage would be obscured. The existing cottage would be reduced to a projection off the new principal elevation, which would instead orientate to the south-west, facing the road. The proposed development would result in a substantial change to the established hierarchy of the building, with the extension forming the bulk of the dwelling rather than a clearly subordinate addition. Belmont would lose its shared architectural language with its surrounding buildings, and in turn, any contribution to their group value. Therefore, the proposal would cause harm to the character of the conservation area (a designated heritage asset) and the proposal is not supported by the Building Design and Conservation Team. The application would not meet the requirements of Policy HE5 of the NPPF or Policy SP16 of the Local Plan. Whilst the 1950s extension would be removed, for the reasons set out above, the proposals would harm the NDHA and also the conservation area. Public benefits have not been put forward which would outweigh this harm.

Impact on Neighbour Amenity

8.34 Objections have been raised in respect of incorrectly titled elevations, impacts of overbearing and loss of light. To address these concerns, amended elevations including a daylight assessment and a 45-degree plan have been received. The daylight assessment has not indicated a time of day which it represents and does not provide detailed sun tracking changes at various points of the day. In this case, drawn from the nearest edge of neighbouring rear-facing windows, the plan demonstrates that the extension may not increase the level of overshadowing more than already exists as sun tracking moves across the site from east to west. However, the roof plan does demonstrate that the two storey extension and porch would encroach into the 45-degree angle from ground and first floor windows of 2 Ashdale Cottages at its rear. The extension, having an asymmetric roof on this side, would be recessed away from the boundary by 0.8m. Although at this distance the extension may not result in an unacceptable loss of daylight, the extension and porch would extend beyond the rear wall of 2 Ashdale Cottages by another 4.7m. In terms of reduced daylight, additional shadowing may occur further down the garden of 2 Ashdale Cottages, and the impact of visual encroachment would not be overcome. It is considered that the imposing built form on the north-west side would be overbearing and detrimental to neighbouring amenity, contrary to Policy DP2 of the Local Plan.

8.35 Windows are be placed in excess of 25m from that property, at oblique angles, and both placement and distance are typical of existing windows from neighbouring properties. The juliette balcony is unlikely to cause any further impact on privacy.

8.36 In relation to the proposed outbuilding, the removal of the large flat-roof garage and three timber storage buildings would benefit the site, however, the replacement garage would be 2.9m higher than the existing with an additional 27 square metres of floorspace. It is considered that the proposed outbuilding would have a detrimental impact upon neighbouring amenity. The visual impact of the building located at what would become the front of the dwelling would be considerable and would further add to the built form at the front of the site.

8.37 The rear wall of the existing garage forms a boundary wall to "The Cob Barn" on its south-west side and is likely to be demolished when the building is replaced. The proposed pitched roof garage would be 2.9m higher than the existing and also higher than the cob dwelling itself. "The Cob Barn" has little amenity space already and it is considered that enlarging the garage on its immediate boundary would be oppressive.

8.38 Altering and enlarging the garage roof, with the addition of solar panels has raised further concerns by adjacent neighbours. No details of the solar panels have been submitted but could be conditioned so that their specification and materials would be appropriate and non-reflective. The right to a view is not a material consideration.

8.39 Overall, the development as a whole would result in unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity in terms of additional impacts, visual intrusion, overbearing and shading, contrary to Policy DP2 of the Local Plan.

Natural Environment

8.40 The Authority’s Tree Officer has noted that the trees growing on and adjacent to this property are protected by the Brockenhurst Conservation Area designation. The replacement garage would require the removal of a small Box Elder tree (Acer negundo) but this is considered a small ornamental garden tree and has limited public visual amenity. There are no important amenity trees threatened by this proposal and no objection from the Tree Officer.

8.41 In relation to ecology, a Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) and Nesting Birds Report undertaken in May 2026 by ABR Ecology concluded that no evidence of nesting birds was recorded within or around the buildings on site but the presence of bats has been confirmed through the identification of bat droppings, the building therefore supports a ‘confirmed’ roost for common pipistrelle bats, and that additional surveys were required. Further Bat Activity Survey Report undertaken in August 2026 by ABR Ecology later confirmed that the building was identified to support two day roosts for a low number of common pipistrelle bats which is of ‘site’ importance. A European Protected Species licence would be required in relation to the proposed development.

8.42 The Authority must therefore be satisfied that the three tests for obtaining such a licence would be met. The first and second tests relate to the work being in the public interest, (this is met by its being in compliance with adopted Policy) and there being no satisfactory alternative. In this instance, as highlighted above, the proposal is not compliant with Policies DP2, DP36, SP16 and SP17 of the Local Plan and Policy DP3, S4, L2 and HE5 of the NPPF thus does not meet these tests.

8.43 The third test relates to the maintenance of the conservation status of the population of protected species. Had the initial tests been met, this test would have been capable of being met subject to the work being carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the ecology report and the requirements of a licence.

8.44 It is recognised that biodiversity net gain is now 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. 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 (as amended).

Flooding and Drainage

8.45 The site is located in Environment Agency Flood Zone 1 (low probability of fluvial flooding) and standing advice does not require a flood risk assessment. A Southern Water access point and water meter are located directly in front of the garage along the Park Close frontage. The Construction Environmental Management Plan outlines that construction access would be taken from the existing driveway from Burford Lane and contractor parking would be accommodated within the site. Appropriate care would be taken to prevent contamination of surrounding land and drainage systems.

Other

8.46 Objections have raised concerns with the installation of air source heat pumps (ASHP), in particular potential noise nuisance emanating from it, and concerns relating to the installation of solar panels on the roof of the outbuilding.

8.47 Policy SP14 sets out that development proposals for, or incorporating renewable energy generation, other than wind energy will be permitted where they are small-scale and provide energy for individual households or businesses, or for small local community facilities; are located and designed to have minimal visual impact; and do not have adverse impact on the landscape character, heritage assets, natural beauty, wildlife, tranquillity or other special qualities of the National Park.

8.48 ASHP and solar panels can generally be installed on or within the curtilage of residential dwellings under permitted development. The ASHP and solar panels would provide small scale renewable energy to the individual residential dwelling, would not be installed on the NHDA and would accord with Policy SP14. The specification and potential noise generation could be controlled by condition.

Conclusion

8.49 The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, siting and design would not be in keeping with or appropriate to the existing building or the locality causing harm to heritage assets which is not outweighed by public benefit. In addition, the proposals would have unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbour amenity and would not meet the tests for a European Protected Species licence. Overall, the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of Policies DP2, DP18, DP36, SP6, SP16 and SP17 of the adopted Local Plan, the Design Guide SPD and the NPPF (August 2026).

9. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s) for refusal:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, siting, design and relationship with neighbouring properties, would not be appropriate to the existing dwelling, a non-designated heritage asset, its curtilage or the locality. The proposal would cause harm to heritage assets and it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the harm would be outweighed by public benefit. The proposal would be contrary to the requirements of Policies DP2, DP18, DP36, SP16 and SP17 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016 – 2036, the Design Guide SPD and Sections 12, 14, 19 and 20 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2026.

   Furthermore, the proposed development would not seek to further the purposes of the National Park, contrary to the requirement of Section 245 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, which amended Section 11A of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

2. It has not been demonstrated that there are imperative reasons of overrding public interest which override the loss of bat roosts within the existing building or that there is no satisfactory alternative to the proposed development. The proposal would therefore not fully meet the derogation tests contained within the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and would therefore be contrary to Policy SP6 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 and Section 20 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2026.