March Committee Full Reports

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Departure from Development Plan

2. POLICIES

Development Plan Designations

• Listed Building
• Tree Preservation Order
• Grade II Registered Park and Garden

Principal Development Plan Policies

• DP2 General development principles
• DP18 Design principles
• DP35 Replacement dwellings
• DP36 Extensions to dwellings
• DP37 Outbuildings
• SP5 Nature conservation sites of international importance
• SP6 The natural environment
• SP7 Landscape character
• SP15 Tranquillity
• SP16 The historic and built environment
• SP17 Local distinctiveness
• SP19 New residential development in the National Park
• SP48 The land-based economy
• DP51 Recreational horse keeping
• DP52 Field shelters and stables

Supplementary Planning Documents

Design Guide SPD

NPPF

• Sec 5 - Delivering a sufficient supply of homes
• Sec 12 - Achieving well-designed places
• Sec 15 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
• Sec 16 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

3. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

4. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Brockenhurst Parish Council: Recommend permission

5. CONSULTEES

• Building Design and Conservation Officer: No objections subject to conditions
• Ecologist: Support subject to conditions
• Tree Officer: No objections subject to development being carried out in accordance with the approved Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan
• Archaeologist: No objections subject to appropriate conditions to secure an iterative program of archaeological investigation, monitoring and recording.
• Hampshire County Council Surface Water Management (Lead Local Flood Authority): No objections subject to conditions securing sull details of drainage design
• Hampshire County Council Highways: No objection subject to a condition ensuring development would be undertaken in accordance with the submitted construction traffic management plan
• Hampshire County Council Countryside Services: No comment specific to the proposals but the Local Authority and applicant should be made aware of requirements of any development affecting or close to any public rights of way.
• Natural England: No objections subject to appropriate mitigation being secured
• NFDC Environmental Protection (Contaminated Land): No objections subject to conditions:
  • Petroleum Officer records show an underground diesel tank in close proximity to the south east side of the existing main building.
  • A site investigation to identify and remove the tank is required to be submitted to ensure the proposed development is safe and suitable for use.
• Gardens Trust: General support for the refurbishment of the listed buildings, demolition and replacement of the Lime Cottage, the main house and insensitive modern structures, such as the agricultural buildings, together with the sympathetic restoration of the park. There are a few points of concern and on which clarification is required:
  • Any ancillary domestic structures associated with the restoration of the listed buildings should be kept to a minimum so as not to result in the over-domestication of the park or its setting.
  • Information should be sought regarding the proposed drainage systems for the buildings, to ensure that it does not negatively impact the landscape.
  • New tracks are to be hoggin which should be conditioned but would query the suitability of the proposed track leading from Church Lane to the southwest to the proposed walled garden. This would cut across the open landscape and may negatively affect the character of both is section of the park and canal, which are at present void of such features. Need clarification on the type of track that is proposed and justification for its creation.
  • The application does not provide details, such a schedule of works or method statement as to how such features such as the Italianate garden, original water bodes, canal, steps and ha-ha are to be restored and this should be sought and the Gardens Trust reconsulted once details have been provided.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

Friends of Brockenhurst: Support the proposal, subject to justifying a departure from Policies DP35 and DP36:

• Raise concerns about the lack of a construction management plan, which given the potential for increased traffic and the narrow roads in the vicinity is essential to ensure that the use of Church Hill is kept to a minimum to protect the safety of walkers.

Twentieth Century Society: Objection of the following grounds:

• Regard the principal dwelling (‘Brockenhurst Park House’) as a non-designated heritage asset due to its high interest, historic value within the Grade II Registered Park and Garden that is Brockenhurst Park and unique relationship with the formal late-C19 Italianate garden.
• The Applicant’s Heritage Statement does not address the heritage significance of the house and the full heritage impact of the demolition of Brockenhurst Park House is not assessed.
• Therefore, the application does not fulfil NPPF paragraph 216.
• Necessary to consider the benefits of retaining the existing building, from an embodied carbon perspective.
• Demolition of associated auxiliary buildings to the north of the house would allow the existing building to hold a stronger relationship to the wider landscape without requiring the high-carbon demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new building.
• Not convinced that NPPF 84e has been met as the design of the existing building is more relevant to the immediate formal garden than that of the proposed new house.
• Contrary to the Applicant’s Assessment, the existing building has not been rejected for listing.

Comment by Church Warden of Brockenhurst Church: No objection:

• Raise concerns over increased traffic on Church Hill, which would conflict with the operation of St Nicholas Church.

One supporting third party comment received: Impressive imaginative design for the proposed replacement building.

7. RELEVANT HISTORY

• Refurbishment and restoration of listed cottage (Park Cottage) and dairy (The Dairy), (Application for Listed Building Consent) (25/00762LBC)- pending decision
• Refurbishment of existing dwelling for use in association with Brockenhurst Park and creation of domestic curtilage (02/74895) withdrawn on 05 December 2007
• Internal alterations to form dwelling. Addition of conservatory (Listed Building Application) (02/74894) withdrawn on 05 December 2007
• Conversion of redundant dairy to dwelling for use in association with Brockenhurst park, conservatory and creation of domestic curtilage (02/74893) withdrawn on 05 December 2007
• Refurbishment of existing dwelling for use in association with Brockenhurst Park and creation of domestic curtilage (Listed Building Application) (02/74890) withdrawn on 05 December 2007

8. ASSESSMENT

Application Site

8.1 The Application Site (approximately 2.3 hectares in size) comprises Brockenhurst Park (a Grade II Registered Historic Park and Garden) originally laid out in the late 17th century by the Morant family. Much of the estate comprises areas of fields and woodland and a small lake lies towards its centre. The site does not lie within any defined settlement and for the purposes of planning policy lies within open countryside. The majority of the site falls within a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC).

8.2 The main house itself dates from the 1960s and replaced an earlier building (likely to be of late 17th century construction). The existing building on site comprises two storeys with a flat roofed design. The external facing materials comprise dark brown brick with a copper roof.

8.3 A stable block and agricultural buildings (two storage barns) lie immediately to the north of the main house. These are arranged around a triangular yard area. The north-eastern extent of the main garden area is enclosed by a “ha ha”. A formal water garden (including rectangular pond) laid out in an Italianate style lies to the south of the main house.

8.4 A small cottage (Lime Tree Cottage, a 1960’s bungalow) lies approximately 60 metres north of the main dwelling’s garden area. A further cottage (Grade II Listed Park Cottage, dating from the early 18th century) lies approximately 250 metres north-east of the main house. A cluster of agricultural buildings lie to the east of this cottage. A further grade II listed building, the Dairy (a mid-19th century ornamental dairy designed in a picturesque Tudor style) lies approximately 250 metres south-east of the farm complex (approximately 1km east of the main house). These buildings are also included within the Application Site – along with the wider estate, the private access roads which run between them and up to Mill Lane to the north (the northern access to the estate). The principal access to the site is obtained from Church Lane (to the west), adjacent to the principal dwelling.

8.5 There is a public bridleway extending south from Church Lane through the south-western part of the site.

8.6 In terms of wider context, the Lymington River (and corresponding flood zone designation) lies to the to the north and east, and Roydon Woods (with its associated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and ancient woodland designations) lies to the south and west. The defined settlement area of Brockenhurst lies immediately to the north of Mill Lane. The site is directly adjoined by the Brockenhurst Conservation Area.

Proposed Development

8.7 Consent is sought to replace the existing principal dwelling with a larger two storey dwelling with attached garage block. The overall height would increase from just over 7 metres to just under 12 metres and the external footprint would increase from 340 square metres to just over 1000 square metres. The design of the proposed dwelling has been directly informed by the neo-classical Greek Revival house which is stated to have been on the site in the late 18th century. The facing materials would comprise Chicksgrove stone, copper roofing, painted hardwood windows and cast iron rainwater goods. The house would be re-oriented so as to address the formal Victorian gardens which lie to the south. A walled garden and pool area would be introduced to the west, extending south from the proposed linked three bay garage. The facing materials to the garage (a low, single storey building) would comprise red brick in Flemish bond, slate roofing and painted hardwood windows and doors. It would be linked to the main house by a bike store and utility room.

8.8 The existing barns and stable block to the north-east are proposed to be demolished and the driveway would be re-aligned to form a sweeping curve on the approach to house from the north.

8.9 The planning application also proposes the demolition of ‘Lime Tree Cottage’ (with an external footprint of approximately 110 square metres and currently in use as a holiday let) and replacement with a new dwelling (with an external footprint of approximately 130 square metres) in a different location, creating a new ‘East Gate Lodge’ on the northern access of the estate with Mill Lane (approximately 600 metres east of its current position). The replacement building is also proposed to be used as a holiday let and would also be single storey with a low eaves line and traditional design incorporating red brick in Flemish Bond, clay roof tiles and painted hardwood windows. It would be served by two parking spaces, a modest garden area and would be accessed off the existing estate road.

8.10 The application also proposes the refurbishment and restoration of the grade II listed ‘Park Cottage’ (an existing dwelling in poor condition with only parts remaining) along with the erection of an associated incidental outbuilding to serve the dwelling once reinstated. As a minimum, a new roof and first floor structure would need to be constructed with existing ground floor brickwork repaired in situ. It would be rebuilt to its original plan form. The proposed outbuilding would comprise a single carport with adjoining store and a new hoggin driveway and turning area would be formed off the estate road. The cottage is also intended to be as a holiday let. A new curtilage of approximately 700 square metres would be formed.

8.11 The Applicant also proposes the refurbishment and restoration of the grade II listed former dairy (currently used for storage) for ancillary residential use (as a yoga studio). It is stated that the works would comprise a combination of repairs to historic fabric and replacement where this is not viable. This would include the replacement of non-original roof fabric alongside the raising of internal floor height through introducing a free-standing structure which the Applicant states can be removed at a later date if required. A new vehicular access road would be formed to access the building from the south.

8.12 The proposals also include the demolition of the redundant agricultural buildings towards the centre of the estate. These would be replaced by a new range of agricultural buildings constructed to the west of the main house off an existing field access from Church Lane. The new building would replace an existing modest structure. It would accommodate a combination of stabling, storage bays, hay storage, a tractor store, an office, a plant room, a mess area and some outdoor covered areas. The overall external footprint would measure just over 900 square metres. A solar array is proposed on the southern roof slope.

8.13 The application has been accompanied by a landscape masterplan which indicates an intention to provide new tree planting across the estate including the boundary with Church Lane and in the north and eastern sections of the site (largely continuing with extensive tree planting which is already being undertaken). It is stated that a programme of replanting, thinning and coppicing is proposed to preserve the longevity of site character alongside an intention to reinstate the sweeping pathways and original drives.

8.14 A detailed lighting strategy (including lux spread) has been provided in respect of all the proposed buildings. This would include lighting to the front entrance of the main house and garage block, to its rear elevation and to the west. The Dairy, the East Gate Lodge and Park Cottage would each have one or two external lights. External lighting is also proposed to the barn. The lighting specification would comprise LED (downward facing) luminaires.

8.15 Alongside the main drawings the application is supported by the following documents:

• Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment (March 2024)
• Agricultural Need Statement (October 2025)
• Expert Design Review Assessment (November 2023)
• House Design Statement (May 2024)
• Other Buildings Design and Access Statement (January 2024)
• Flood Risk Assessment (August 2024)
• Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Extended Phase 1 Survey Report (March 2024)
• Bat Survey (October 2024)
• Bat Hibernation Survey (March 2025)
• Nitrates Technical Note (August 2025)
• BNG Statement (May 2025)
• Heritage Report (February 2022)
• Heritage Impact Assessment (January 2024)
• Construction Management Plan (September 2025).

Background

8.16 This application has been submitted alongside a corresponding application for listed building consent for the refurbishment and restoration of Park Cottage and the dairy.

8.17 The overarching rationale for the application is centred primarily around the provisions of paragraphs 84(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2024). Specifically, the Applicant states that whilst not fully in accordance with the Development Plan, the proposal fulfils the criteria set out as a ‘truly outstanding’ work of design. Accordingly, the submitted Expert Design Review Assessment provides a detailed assessment of this issue.

Consideration

Development Principle

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

8.19 With regards to the proposed replacement of the main house and Lime Tree Cottage, it is recognised that Policy DP35 supports the general principle of replacing dwellings within the New Forest National Park except where the existing dwelling to be replaced is the result of a temporary or series of temporary permissions or the result of an unauthorised use or where the existing dwelling makes a positive contribution to the historic character and appearance of the locality.

8.20 Both existing dwellings are lawful and are not the result of a series of temporary permissions. Lime Tree Cottage is a bungalow dating from the 1960s and is not considered to be of any particular historic or architectural merit. It is therefore not considered to make a positive contribution to the historic character and appearance of the locality. It is recognised that the Twentieth Century Society have submitted comments stating that they regard Brockenhurst Park House as a non-designated heritage asset, due to its high interest and historic value within the Grade II Registered Park and Garden. In response, the Applicant has provided a copy of a Draft Heritage Report dated 2021. This includes an assessment against non-designated heritage asset criteria and makes the following conclusions:

• The modern house (less than 60 years old) does not relate well to the 18th century park.
• It does not reflect any distinctive local characteristics or use local materials or reflect local styles.
• It replaced a building that evidenced an earlier phase of the history of the site and has erased that history.
• It fails to establish a relationship with the wider setting of the historic park by reason of its orientation and diminutive size - and does not reflect the principal historic relationship of a major Country House overlooking the surrounding park.
• It does not have the presence and status of the former house.
• No evidence that the Berry family (who built the existing dwelling) developed strong local links with Brockenhurst.

8.21 It is also recognised that Historic England have advised that the existing main house is not of national significance. They advise that its design is not innovative or of very high quality. The main dwelling at Brockenhurst Park is therefore not considered to make a positive contribution to the historic character and appearance of the locality. The Authority's Building Design and Conservation Team have raised no objections to this element of the proposals.

8.22 On this basis, the general principle of replacing both the main house and Lime Tree Cottage is in accordance with Policy DP35.

8.23 With regards to the issue of siting, Policy DP35 states that a replacement dwelling may be sited differently than the dwelling to be replaced, providing that there are clear environmental benefits. In this instance, the proposed replacement of the main house would be located largely on the footprint of the existing building.

8.24 Lime Tree Cottage is located within the foreground of the main house, and its proposed replacement dwelling (‘East Gate Lodge’) would be located close to the north access to the estate, adjacent Mill Lane (approximately 600 metres from the current location). The Applicant states that the environmental benefits of relocating the dwelling in this case “relate to the positive effect on the parkland in both character and visual terms and to the setting of the replacement principal dwelling, all of which would be enhanced”. The submitted Expert Design Review report refers to Lime Tree Cottage as being “very conspicuously in the landscape”. The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) refers to the impact that Lime Tree Cottage currently has upon the view looking eastwards via the gated access from Church Lane and secondly the view looking south eastwards from the narrow ‘sunken’ lane between Church Lane and Mill Lane (the historic parkland forming part of both of these views).

8.25 The Historic Landscape Assessment provided by the Applicant also considers the siting of the existing bungalow and states as follows: “It intrudes in views from the drive towards the house; and due to the design failure of the existing house, it becomes the dominant element in these views. Where the visitor should see glimpsed or framed views of the house in its pleasure grounds on the crest of the ridge above the drive, the scene is exclusively dominated by a pedestrian mid-twentieth century bungalow and its domestic setting of garden and outbuildings. The building and its setting are clearly a negative, detrimental and discordant element within the eighteenth and nineteenth century park landscape. They have no visual or spatial relationship with the late nineteenth century gardens, or the twentieth century house. Lime Tree Cottage can be concluded to cause harm to the nationally designated historic designed landscape”.

8.26 The proposed location of the East Gate Lodge remains within the historic parkland setting, and it would be sited so as to avoid impact upon the main designated part of the landscape and would also largely replicate the form of the existing North Lodge. It would also relate closely to established boundary screening and would be sited so as to avoid visual intrusion. It is therefore considered that the proposed relocation of the replacement dwelling for Lime Tree Cottage would achieve clear environmental benefits as required by Policy DP35 (subject to imposing a condition to ensure the proposed replacement dwelling is not occupied until the existing cottage is completely demolished). It would also not conflict with the fundamental aim of Policy DP35 to ensure replacement dwellings do not have an increased impact on the protected landscape of the New Forest.

8.27 With regards to the size of the proposed replacement dwellings, a further requirement of Policy DP35 is that (in the case of other dwellings outside the Defined Villages), the replacement dwelling should be of no greater floorspace than the existing dwelling. The supporting text clarifies that the fundamental aim of the policy is to reduce the loss of smaller homes in the National Park through replacement by substantially larger dwellings and to ensure replacement dwellings do not have an increased impact on the protected landscape of the New Forest. It is, however recognised that the general principle of enlarging existing dwellings (which have not previously been extended since 1982) is established through Policy DP36 which (in areas outside the Defined Villages) limits the extension of dwellings to no more than 30% (or up to 100 square metres in the case of small dwellings) based upon the dwelling as it existed in 1982). On this basis, it is considered that a floorspace increase to each dwelling within the limitations set out within Policy DP36 would not represent a conflict with the Development Plan.

8.28 The proposed internal floor area of the replacement unit for Lime Tree Cottage would fall within the 30% floorspace limit and therefore is considered acceptable in terms of its size. The proposed replacement of the main house would result in an overall floorspace increase of just under 150% and on this basis its size is not in accordance with Policies DP35 and DP36. The Applicant acknowledges this local planning policy conflict and states that the proposal is justified on the basis that it would deliver significant landscape restoration and biodiversity enhancements, including an enhancement to the setting of the site. Reference is made to the provisions within paragraphs 84e, 139 and 189 of the NPPF (December 2024).

8.29 As identified above, an Expert Design Assessment has also been provided which provides an assessment against former paragraph 80 of the NPPF (now paragraph 84 in the December 2024 version of the Framework). It is recognised that the reference to the need for innovation referred to in earlier versions of the NPPF is no longer included in the updated NPPF. However, this paragraph continues to advise against allowing isolated homes in the countryside unless one of the listed exceptions apply. However, neither the NPPF nor planning practice define the term “Isolated”. The issue is therefore one which is essentially a matter of planning judgement having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. In this case, the Application Site lies adjacent to the bult up residential area and defined settlement boundary of Brockenhurst and is readily accessible from the village centre. The Applicant also acknowledges the location of the site on the settlement edge and the submitted LVIA refers to an intention for the development design to take “account of the site’s key characteristics including its sensitive, elevated location on the settlement edge and its rural context, which is so appreciated by the local residents.” Given that the site forms part of the immediate setting of Brockenhurst, and having regard to its proximity to the settlement, it is considered that in this instance paragraph 84 of the NPPF is not triggered (based upon the fact that the site is not isolated and so would not fall to be assessed against any of the listed exceptions).

8.30 It is recognised that the NPPF in paragraph 139 states that significant weight should be given to “outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings” (amongst other things). Paragraph 189 states that “great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks” and that the “conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight”.

8.31 These provisions are considered to be of direct relevance to the development proposal given the design intentions for the dwelling, the proposal to restore two listed buildings and the intended landscape / ecological enhancements. In particular, it is recognised that the proposed replacement of the main house could raise the overall design standard in the locality and harmonize with both the informal parkland and Italianate garden. However, detailed design and materials will need to be of a very high standard if this style is to be used successfully. Given the identified conflict with the Development Plan these matters would be key considerations in the overall planning balance.

8.32 With regards to the proposal to restore and refurbish Park Cottage, it is recognised that the original residential use of this building has been abandoned, having regard to the physical condition of the building, the period of non-use and the absence of any recent intention on the part of previous landowners to re-instate it. Therefore, to utilise the building as a holiday let following its restoration would be tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling in open countryside contrary to Policy SP19. With that in mind, it will be necessary to have regard to any wider benefits which might be achieved by this element of the proposal, particularly with regards to the objectives of Policy SP16 in relation to better revealing / enhancing the significance or special interest of the heritage asset and / or helping to secure its long term conservation. As part of this assessment, it would be necessary to have regard to paragraph 221 of the NPPF which states that local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from policy. This is considered further below in the overall conclusion.

8.33 The dairy once restored would be used for purposes incidental to the main house (as a yoga studio) and whilst not within the curtilage of the main house, the general principle of this is supported by Policy DP36, particularly given the modest size of the building and its established location within the estate. The use of the building as a yoga studio would also be aligned with the objectives contained within the NPPF in relation to sustaining and enhancing the significance of the heritage asset and putting it to a viable uses consistent with its conservation.

8.34 With regards to the proposed estate yard, it is intended that this would replace the existing stables and barns which lie adjacent to the main dwelling, providing a secure machinery store, hay and feed store, stables and farm office. The overall footprint of the proposed building would be smaller than that of the existing structures it would replace. The Agricultural Need Statement which has been submitted states that the dispersed layout of the existing facilities creates operational challenges and that there is a need to consolidate the buildings off Church Lane which is where the land management activities for the estate have historically taken place from. It is states that the agricultural fields and woodland on the estate total 81.26 hectares, with the enclosed garden covering another 4.86 hectares and that managing the estate requires a skilled small full-time team along with machinery, tools, and equipment. Alongside the management of the estate activities will focus on high welfare, outdoor reared grass fed livestock. On this basis, it is considered that as required by Policy DP50 there is a functional need for the building and that its scale is commensurate with that need. The simple, functional form and design of the building would ensure it would be designed for the purposes of agriculture / the management of the land. Furthermore, its overall size in relation to existing structures is such that it would not be large or obtrusive or generate a harmful level of activity. The proposal is also in accordance with paragraph 88 of the NPPF which supports the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed, new buildings.

8.35 In conclusion on the matter of development principle, it is considered that the proposed replacement dwellings, refurbishment of the Dairy, associated works and estate yard accord with the Development Plan. However, the overall size of the proposed main dwelling proposed would conflict with Policies DP35 and DP36 and the general principle of introducing new residential development to the site (Park Cottage) conflicts with Policy SP19. On this basis, it would be necessary to have regard to any relevant material considerations in the overall planning balance, in particular paragraphs 139,189, and 221 of the NPPF.

Character and Landscape

8.36 With regards to visual impacts, Policy SP1 seeks to ensure new development enhances the landscape of the New Forest through high quality design and responds to the local distinctiveness of the area. Policy DP2 states that development should be appropriate and sympathetic in terms of scale, appearance, form, siting and layout incorporating materials and boundary treatments which are appropriate to the site and its setting. Policy SP7 requires the design, layout, massing and scale of proposals to conserve and enhance existing landscape character and do not detract from the natural beauty of the National Park. Policy DP18 seeks to ensure development is contextually appropriate and does not harm key visual features, landscape setting or other valued components of the landscape. Policy SP15 states that development proposals that seek to remove visually intrusive man-made structures from the landscape will be supported.

8.37 With regards to the existing buildings proposed for demolition, the Applicant’s Design Statement describes the main house as a diminutive building for the grandeur of the setting. It describes it as being awkwardly close to its contemporary stables and staff cottage to the northeast, impacting upon views of the park to the north. It is also described as being visually detached from the wider context of gardens and parkland. The existing double garage (to be demolished) faces one of the most important parkland views in the wider 18th century landscape. Furthermore, as identified above, Lime Tree Cottage (to the north of the main house) is also very conspicuous placed in the landscape and currently impacts upon notable views within and across the site. The proposed removal of these existing incongruous elements of built form would therefore be in accordance with Policy SP15.

8.38 It is recognised that the proposed replacement of the main dwelling would be significantly larger than the existing building in terms of both height and footprint. Specifically, its overall height would increase from seven metres to 12 metres and the external footprint would increase from approximately 340m² to over 1000m². However, the nature of the topography across the site, the distance between the various proposed built elements and the presence of intervening natural features would limit opportunities for any significant cumulative visual impacts. Furthermore, the site of the existing main house is particularly well screened from views beyond the site boundary and the proposed replacement would remain largely within the footprint of the existing building.

8.39 Notwithstanding the increased size of the main house, it would comprise a distinctive unornamented neo-Classical design incorporating high quality materials (finely tooled Chicksgrove stone with copper roof). Whilst the use of stone on building exteriors in the New Forest is rare, the Design Guide SPD recognises that it does typically feature on high-status buildings such as churches, some barns and manor houses. In accordance with the principles contained within the Design Guide it would also incorporate symmetry and harmony in its design, through the use of geometric ratios which underpin the design of Georgian buildings. Given its context (within a grade II listed historic designated landscape) the general design approach of re-instating a country house on the site is considered acceptable, contextually appropriate and one which also responds appropriately to local distinctiveness as required by policy. Furthermore, the framing of vistas towards and from the building, coupled with the use of appropriate materials on the exterior of the building, would all act to create a strong connection between the building and its immediate rural setting.

8.40 Whilst the proposed replacement dwelling to Lime Tree Cottage (the proposed East Gate Lodge) would be positioned closer to the estate boundary and the highway, it would be set back from the roadside boundary by approximately 12 metres. However, it would also be orientated at an approximate 45-degree angle to this boundary. Whilst the site of the proposed dwelling is currently elevated above the level of the highway and the estate track, the plans indicate that the proposed dwelling would be set down in the ground with a retaining wall enclosing the west section of the garden area. The existing trees and vegetation which lie between the site of the proposed dwelling and the highway would also be retained. Having regard to this, along with the modest overall height of the dwelling (six metres) and the use of traditional high-quality materials, it is considered that it would sit comfortably in its surroundings and would not lead to a significant harmful impact upon the rural street scene experienced along Mill Lane.

8.41 It is recognised that the proposed agricultural building range would lie close to Church Lane and the adjacent public bridle way. As such, it would be visible in public views. However, the proposal would be set back from the roadside boundary by approximately 45m and from the public right of way by just over 20m. Existing boundary vegetation to both of these receptors would be retained. Furthermore, the relatively modest roofline of the building (just under six metres), its simple / functional form and partially open design would ensure it be reflective of other rural buildings in the area. Its overall footprint would be more modest that the structures it is intended to replace and, on this basis, it would largely avoid cumulative impacts on the wider landscape. The facing materials would comprise corrugated steel roof cladding with timber cladding which accords with the Design Guide SPD – which promotes the use of simple corrugated metal sheeting and black painted timber on low key outbuildings and barns. Therefore, subject to ensuring the retention of existing boundary vegetation (and the removal of the existing barn and stable range adjacent to the main house) the proposed building would not result in a significant harmful impact upon local character.

8.42 With regards to tranquillity, once operational, the proposed development (amounting to a net increase of one dwelling, with an enlargement of the main house) would not give rise to a significant or harmful increase in overall levels of activity generated from the site. The proposed barns are required for the purposes of continuing agriculture, land maintenance and private stabling and can reasonably be conditioned so as to ensure this remains the case.

8.43 With regards to lighting impacts, the application has been accompanied by a Lighting Strategy which covers all built elements of the proposal. This specifies various technologies to minimise light spill and lighting to the cottages and dairy would be limited to one or two downlights on the main doorways. The main house itself has also been designed to as to minimise light spill. Non architectural uplighting or elevational “light washing” is proposed. On this basis, it is concluded that any additional impacts from external lighting would not be unacceptable subject to appropriate conditions being imposed in the event that consent is forthcoming.

8.44 With regards to construction impacts, the application has been accompanied by a Construction Management Plan (CMP) which states that no site clearance, preparation, or construction work shall take place outside the outlined working hours. It is stated that all temporary and permanent lighting installations will be designed to avoid light spill and that any task lighting will be directional and shielded.

8.45 Having regard to the development design and various mitigation measures proposed, it is concluded that the proposed development would be accordance with Policy SP15 and would adequately prevent artificial lighting from eroding rural darkness and tranquillity.

8.46 With regards to landscaping considerations, the application proposes to reintroduce a hierarchy of access with drives from each gate to the main house and a series of minor tracks to the Dairy and Watcombe Farm to ensure access and long-term maintenance of these structures is possible. All new tracks (and new parking and turning spaces) would be hoggin to match existing.

8.47 The proposed landscape strategy has been designed to enhance and safeguard existing plant species and the Applicant has proposed to undertake a long term re-stock and planting of parkland trees and specimens so as to restore the wood pasture character and age diversity. It is also proposed to reinstate “the Gallop” and avenue trees which run along the southern extent of the site. Management including thinning, removal of invasive species and new planting would also be undertaken within the arboretum. These various measures are set out within the Applicant’s Landscape and Ecology Management Plan, Woodland Management Plan and Landscape Design Statement and would be secured through conditions.

8.48 It is considered that the high-quality design of the built elements of the scheme, together with the proposed detailed landscaping of its grounds would significantly enhance the immediate setting of the site in accordance with Policy SP7.

Natural Features / Trees

8.49 The majority of trees at Brockenhurst Park are not protected, as only those around North Lodge are within Brockenhurst Conservation Area (and adjacent Tree Preservation Order 100/03.) Alongside the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan, Landscape Design Statement and Woodland Management Plan, the application has also been accompanied by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment. This has been reviewed by the Authority's Tree Officer, and it has been observed on site that there are some fine specimen veteran, ancient and notable trees within the park and that these are all being managed properly. The Tree Officer advises that considerable new planting has taken place across the park over the past few years with some 150 parkland trees, and in excess of 600 whips with more proposed in 2026. The Tree Officer is satisfied with the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment Method Statement & Tree Protection Plan which identifies 14 trees and shrubs to be removed for the development. These have been assessed and either need to be removed on safety grounds or are shown to have no public visual amenity and are not worthy of protection. The Tree Officer is also satisfied that new planting far outweighs and mitigates these losses.

8.50 Accordingly, there are no arboricultural objections to the proposal subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment Method Statement (which can reasonably be secured through appropriate conditions).

Historic Environment

8.51 As identified above, Brockenhurst Park is a grade II registered park and garden. The Dairy and Park Cottage (which are proposed to be restored) are also grade II listed. The grade II listed North Lodge (located on the north east access to Mill Lane) lies within the estate but is not scoped into the Application Site.

8.52 With regards to heritage assets outside the site, the Brockenhurst Conservation Area (Character Area B) wraps around the western corner of the site. St Nicholas’ Church, a Grade II* listed building (also within the Brockenhurst Conservation Area) lies adjacent to the main access to the site off Church Lane. An 18th century tomb chest lies within the church grounds. A grade II listed dwelling (Longbow) lies directly opposite the north-east access of the estate and the proposed location of the East Gate Lodge.

8.53 In accordance with Policy SP16 and paragraph 207 of the NPPF, the Application has been accompanied by a heritage assessment which describes the significance of heritage assets affected. It has also been accompanied by an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment (March 2024) and a historic landscape assessment has also been undertaken. The dwelling design has been the subject of an independent review by a historic building consultant, and the scheme has been informed by on-going discussions with Historic England and the Local Planning Authority since 2021.

8.54 With regards to Conservation Areas, Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires Local Planning Authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing their character or appearance. Paragraph 212 of the NPPF states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). The Brockenhurst Conservation Character Appraisal (CAC) states that views throughout the character area are generally restricted by the tree and hedge boundaries to the graveyard at St Nicholas Church and the historic trackway. It states that traditional boundary treatments include mature hedgerow, brick walls, picket fencing, metal estate fencing, timber palisade fencing and post and rail fencing. It also refers to the particularly decorative iron entrance gate into Brockenhurst Park in the vicinity of the church. The various features identified which contribute towards the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would not be directly impacted by the proposed development and the existing external boundary features which run around the permitter of the estate would be retained. Furthermore, the proposal to replace and relocate Lime Tree Cottage would result in an overall improvement to views from the Conservation Area into Brockenhurst Park. For this same reason the setting of St Nicholas Church would also not be impacted significantly as a result of the development.

8.55 With regards to the impact upon the significance of Brockenhurst Park itself, it is recognised that the parkland is appreciably 18th century in character and (based upon advice from Historic England), is a good example of an ‘instant’ park, which was created by removing hedges, enclosing farmland and retaining ancient trees. The gardens surrounding the house are set out in an Italianate style. However, following the Second World War, the estate fell into disrepair. The proposed removal of existing intrusive elements and re-instatement of a country house on the site will enhance the significance of the grade II registered historic garden. The Authority's Building Design and Conservation Officer raises no objections in relation to impacts upon the significance of Brockenhurst Park on the basis that the proposals would overall revive and enhance its historic landscape character.

8.56 Having regard to the layout and design of the various elements of the proposal, the presence of intervening features and the fact that the periphery and boundary treatments to the estate would not change, it is considered that the proposal would not lead to any significant impact upon the setting of listed buildings adjacent to the site (including St Nicholas’ Church, the North Lodge and Longbow off Mill Lane).

8.57 With regards to the two grade II listed buildings within the site, the mid-19th century ornamental dairy, and the early 18th century Park Cottage both act as eye catchers within the historic landscape. The rescue and sympathetic restoration of both these buildings is welcomed and considered a heritage benefit. Furthermore, the proposed works are considered sympathetic in respect of both these buildings. This is subject to appropriate conditions being imposed to secure an appropriate repair schedule in respect of the Dairy and also a repointing methodology, lime specification, coursing, pointing technique, and replacement brick specification in relation to Park Cottage. No objections have been raised by the Building Design and Conservation Officer in relation to the mezzanine floor which is proposed to be introduced to Park Cottage.

8.58 With regards to below ground heritage interests, the Applicant has provided an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment which has been reviewed by the Authority's Archaeologist. This establishes that due to a lack of previous archaeological investigation, the presence, location and significance of any archaeological remains within the site cannot currently be confirmed on the basis of the available information. On this basis, due to the size, scale and scope of the proposed development an iterative program of archaeological investigation, monitoring and recording will be required. Subject to this being secured through conditions, no significant adverse impact upon below ground heritage interests are anticipated.

8.59 Overall, it is concluded that the proposal would preserve the setting and significance of adjacent listed buildings as required by Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990) along with the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Area in accordance with Section 72 of the Act. The Building Design and Conservation Team do not raise concerns in relation to the proposal and overall, it is considered that the proposals would protect, maintain and enhance features of the historic and built environment, including archaeological sites and designed and historic landscapes, and that they would help secure a sustainable future for those heritage assets at risk as required by Policy SP16.

Amenity

8.60 Policy DP2 states that development should not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on amenity in terms of additional impacts, visual intrusion, overlooking or shading.

8.61 With regards to the living conditions of future occupants, the proposed main house, along with the two proposed holiday cottages (the proposed East Gate Lodge and Park Cottage) would be well distanced from each other so as to avoid any significant impacts. With the exception of the proposed East Gate Lodge, the majority of the development as a whole would be set well back within the estate grounds so as to avoid impacts upon neighbouring residents outside the site. The East Gate Lodge would be located adjacent to the north boundary of the estate and just over 30 metres from Long Bow, a detached dwelling which lies across North Lane. Whilst the proposal would be visible from this property, it is considered that due to the distance between, the presence of intervening features and the orientation of the two dwellings, the proposal would not give rise to significant additional impacts, through visual intrusion, overlooking or shading. The scale and layout of the development and also the proposed lighting design would ensure the proposal would not give rise to significant noise or light pollution once occupied.

8.62 With regards to impacts during the construction phase, the Applicant’s Construction Management Plan (CMP) proposes various measures to mitigate impacts upon local residents. Subject to these measures being secured, it is concluded that in accordance with policy DP2 the proposal will not result in unacceptable adverse impacts associated with noise or light pollution.

Highways

8.63 With regards to highway safety considerations, in this instance, no changes are proposed to the existing vehicular access points to and from the site. Given that the development would result in a net increase of one dwelling, the proposal would not give rise to a significant increase in vehicular activity over and above the current situation. The Highways Authority have advised that, on this basis, they raise no objections to the proposed development.

8.64 With regards to parking provision, the proposed main dwelling would have six bedrooms and would include parking for at least four cars. The proposed East Gate Lodge would have two bedrooms and would include two parking spaces and Park Cottage (one bedroom) would be served by at least two parking spaces. Overall, the proposed parking provision would meet the relevant standards contained within Annex 2 of the adopted Local Plan.

8.65 Whilst the proposed estate barn would necessitate the creation of a new access point off Church Lane, the Highways Authority raise no objections to this aspect of the proposals. Furthermore, it is evident that the point of access proposed would benefit from a good standard of visibility. It is also recognised that the proposed vehicular access to the estate barn would lie adjacent to an existing public bridleway. However, the two routes would be separated from one another and, once operational, the proposal would not impact upon the safety or enjoyment of people using the right of way. HCC Countryside Services also raise no objections to the development.

8.66 It is recognised that third party concerns have been raised in relation to impacts associated with construction traffic. However the development is proposed to be carried out in phases, which will in itself limit the overall daily volume of traffic movements for what will be a temporary impact. The CMP states that construction traffic will not be allowed to access from the Brockenhurst side of Church Lane and that, a detailed Construction Traffic Routing Plan will be included within the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to avoid sensitive areas and ensure safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and horse riders. It is stated that no obstruction or alteration will occur to any existing public right of way. The proposed CTMP would be secured through conditions.

8.67 Overall, it is concluded the proposal would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts associated with traffic and will comply with required standards for parking. The development as a whole is also sustainably located within close walking distance of the settlement of Brockenhurst. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policies SP55 and DP2 along with paragraph 110 of the NPPF.

Ecology

8.68 Policy SP6 requires proposals to protect, maintain and enhance nationally, regionally and locally important sites and features of the natural environment, including habitats and species of biodiversity importance, geological features and the water environment. It also states that development which is likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) will not be permitted. This closely reflects the requirements of paragraph 193 of the NPPF which states that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

8.69 With regards to local biodiversity interests, the majority of the site (excluding the area where the proposed estate building is to be located) falls within a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) designation. The reason for notification (wood pasture/parkland) is present within the site and would be directly impacted as a result of the development footprint leading to direct loss of habitat. Wood pasture typically comprises mosaic habitats valued for their trees, especially veteran and ancient trees. Specifically impacts would result from the increased size of the dwelling, the proposed relocation of Lime Tree Cottage, and the additional driveway, parking and turning areas proposed. The submitted ecological assessment also identifies that there is also potential for small areas of grassland and woodland to be lost or temporarily disturbed as a result of the restoration of cottages. However, these impacts would largely be mitigated and compensated for through the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) and Biodiversity net gain (BNG) measures. Enhancements would include native planting through the existing parkland. Additionally, the proposed drainage design would avoid conflict with root protection areas of parkland trees and minimise surface runoff. The most significant additional built footprint (the proposed estate building along with its associated access and internal trackway) would be located outside the SINC designation.

8.70 With regards to potential impacts upon protected species, the bat surveys which accompany the application indicate that the proposed restoration of the grade II listed buildings Park Cottage and the Dairy would impact upon bat roosts of District level importance. Additionally, the demolition of Lime Tree Cottage would result in the destruction of a common pipistrelle day and mating roost (as well as the potential to kill, injure or disturb bats using the roosts at the time of the works). On this basis a protected species licence will therefore be required, and the Authority must therefore address the three derogation tests contained within the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 in deciding whether to grant planning permission. The three tests are that:

• The activity to be licensed must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety;
• There must be no satisfactory alternative
• Conservation Status Test: the proposed activity must not harm the long-term conservation status of the species population in their natural range.

8.71 With regards to the issue of public interest, it would be necessary (given the nature of the proposed development) to have regard to the acknowledgement contained within both the Local Development Plan and also the General Permitted Development Procedure Order of the right for occupants to carry out improvements and enlargements to dwellings and associated incidental buildings to ensure their viability in the longer term. Furthermore, the proposal to refurbish and reinstate the two grade II listed buildings would represent a significant public benefit. The demolition of Lime Tree Cottage would also enhance the significance of the historic parkland. As identified in the submitted bat survey, both of the listed buildings are currently in a poor state of repair, dangerous and likely to fall into further disrepair if works are not carried out soon, which would result in the loss of all bat roosts present. The proposed works would ensure that all bat roost opportunities have been secured, and additional opportunities provided with monitoring to ensure that they are successful or to make further recommendations where required.

8.72 With regards to there being no other satisfactory alternatives – the two listed buildings need to be restored and used to be able to finance the repairs. This means that the features that are currently being used by bats need to be sealed and insulated to meet current building standards. Mitigation has been included to ensure that there are suitable alternative roosts in close proximity to the original roosts, as well as multiple enhancement features to provide a variety of roosting provisions in the retained and newly created buildings. Furthermore, Park Cottage is a building at risk and any proposal to re-instate this building would inevitably impact upon bat roosts. The alternative of retaining Lime Tree Cottage in its current position would significantly temper the overall estate wide design approach and the objective of re-instating the significance of Brockenhurst Park.

8.73 With regards to the third test, the submitted bat report identifies that the proposed works would be timed to avoid the most sensitive periods (hibernation and mating). Bespoke provision is being provided for each roost lost with multiple enhancement features being provided for the low numbers of each bat species present. Monitoring will be undertaken to ensure that the features provided are suitable. Given the low numbers of each species present, the features used by the bats and the occasional use of the roosts present, and that the hibernation period for a low number of common and widespread bat species will be avoided (with mitigation in place six months prior to destruction), it is considered that the proposed development will not affect any of the bat species present in their ability to breed, hibernate or disperse.

8.74 The ecology report also puts forward various mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures including the installation of a bat loft within the carport to Park Cottage (which would be implemented prior to the conversion of the Dairy). Various bat features would be installed across the other buildings and also on nearby trees.

8.75 Overall, it is concluded that the proposal would meet the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The proposal would also be in accordance with to Policy SP6 which seeks to ensure proposals protect, maintain and enhance features of the natural environment, including habitats and species of biodiversity importance.

8.76 With regards to statutory nature conservation sites, the Roydon Woods SSSI, lies to the south of the site and the Lymington River SSSI lies to the east (falling partly within the eastern edge of the estate). However, the proposed development footprint lies outside this designation, and the proposed layout would also ensure a sufficient degree of separation (a minimum of approximately 250 metres) so as to avoid any significant indirect impacts (subject the appropriate mitigation being in place). There are no other significant proposals in the locality with the potential to impact upon the above designations and it is therefore considered that the current proposal would not lead to a significant adverse effect on the adjacent SSSI land (either individually or in combination with other developments) as required by Policy SP6.

8.77 With regards to Nature conservation sites of international importance (Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar Sites) the Application Site lies in an area where foul water is distributed into the European designated areas Solent SPAs/Ramsar sites. In accordance with advice from Natural England a net increase in housing development (overnight accommodation) within this part of the New Forest National Park is likely to result in impacts to the integrity of those sites through a consequent increase in Nitrogen. The proposed development would result in a net increase of one dwelling unit (Park Cottage). Therefore, the proposed development will have a likely significant effect in the absence of avoidance and mitigation measures on European and Internationally protected sites. However, in this instance it is proposed that the two existing septic tanks will be decommissioned and replaced with a new (more efficient) package treatment plant. These elements of the development would be secured with conditions along with a management and monitoring plan for the PTPs to ensure they would operate efficiently for the lifetime of the development and would ensure the development would be nitrate neutral. This is a recognised form of mitigation for water quality impacts on the Solent's internationally designated sites adopted by local planning authorities within nutrient affected catchments.

8.78 In accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (‘the Habitat Regulations’) an Appropriate Assessment has been carried out as to whether granting planning permission would adversely affect the integrity of the New Forest and Solent Coast European sites, in view of that site’s conservation objectives. The Assessment concludes that prior to mitigation the proposed development (a net increase in residential development) would, in combination with other developments, have an adverse effect due to the recreational impacts on the European sites. Adverse impacts would be avoided if the planning permission were to be conditional upon the approval of proposals for the mitigation of that impact in accordance with the Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy (through the approved Bird Aware Solent scheme) or mitigation to at least an equivalent effect. The development would also be required to address in-combination recreational impacts on the New Forest's internationally designated sites. Adopted mitigation schemes exist for both of these designated sites and therefore the National Park Authority - as competent authority - is confident that mitigation for in-combination recreational impacts can be secured.

8.79 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. This increase can be achieved through onsite biodiversity gains, registered offsite biodiversity gains or statutory biodiversity credits.

8.80 The proposed development would result in a net gain of 3.98 habitat units (+10.07%). On this basis, it is concluded that subject to the agreed measures being secured through an appropriate mechanism, the proposal would secure 10% BNG as required by the Environment Act 2021. Accordingly, subject to conditions and the securing of the necessary monitoring and management, development would have a positive impact upon biodiversity.

8.81 It is also recognised that Policy SP6 and Planning Practice Guidance promotes wider environmental net gain in order to reduce pressure on and achieve overall improvements in natural capital, ecosystem services and the benefits they deliver. In this case, alongside native planting to be implemented across the estate, bat features are proposed to be installed in the Dairy, Park Cottage and the main house. Additionally, bird nesting boxes will be placed in locally occurring semi-mature or mature trees to replace and enhance nesting bird habitat in close proximity to the buildings. Artificial swallow nest cups would also be installed in retained buildings to replace the nesting resource for this species. These various measures are outlined within the submitted Bat Survey and would be secured through conditions.

8.82 Overall, having regard to the above assessment and the various measures put forward by the Applicant it is concluded that the proposal would adequately avoid unacceptable adverse impacts upon biodiversity, and would maintain and features of the natural environment, including habitats and species of biodiversity importance. The development would therefore be in accordance with Policies SP5 and SP6 and along with paragraph 193 of the NPPF.

Sustainability

8.83 With regards to sustainability and climate considerations, the application has been accompanied by an energy and sustainability statement which states that the development design is intended to aim for Passivhaus Premium certification which essentially means the development once built would generate more energy than is required to operate the building. It is stated that if this standard is to be achieved it would result in 91,200 tonnes of whole life carbon savings over the life of the building compared to the existing building. Various sustainability measures are proposed and these would include:

• Built fabric (including Limecrete floor and foundations) designed to reduce embodied carbon and increase efficiency.
• Low carbon concrete alternatives.
• Thermally efficient windows, doors (Achieving Class 4 airtightness), walls and roof.
• Roof mounted solar array.
• Underfloor heating (UFH) system and Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP).
• Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.
• Free EV charging to visitors.
• Water efficiency measures.
• Measure to prevent overheating.

8.84 Having regard to the various measures proposed, it is concluded that the proposal would ensure sustainable design and construction including improved water efficiency, would incorporate small scale renewable energy and would support the transition to net zero by 2050. The proposal would therefore be in accordance with Policies SP11, DP18 and also paragraph 161 of the NPPF.

Flood Risk and Drainage

8.85 With regards to flood risk and surface drainage considerations, in this case the Application Site does not lie within a designated flood zone and therefore in accordance with Policy SP11 avoids development in areas subject to high flood risk. However, it is recognised that the proposal is classed as major development and in accordance with paragraph 181 of the NPPF it has been accompanied by a site specific flood risk assessment.

8.86 The submitted assessments indicate that ground conditions around the main house and estate yard are suitable for infiltration based drainage which is the preferred approach within the drainage hierarchy and also Policy DP8. However, because the site of the proposed East Lodge is unsuitable for infiltration drainage it is likely to discharge to a ditch to the north of the site. Rainwater harvesting, filter strips, and pervious surfaces are proposed on all buildings. The drainage design would also incorporate rain gardens.

8.87 The Lead Local Flood Authority’s initial comment requested further clarification in relation to infiltration testing and also further information on how drainage design would respond to the highly perched water table (identified in the Applicant’s assessment). Following on from further discussions, however, they have since confirmed that full details of drainage design can reasonably be secured through conditions.

8.88 With regards to foul drainage, it is proposed that the existing package treatment plant (PTP) (stated to be functioning inefficiently) to the dwelling will be upgraded to a more efficient PTP. The proposed East Gate Lodge will be connected to mains sewer (the most sustainable option in terms of foul drainage) and Park Cottage will also be served by a new PTP. A performance certificate and specification has been provided in respect of both PTPs.

8.89 It is recognised that aside from the nutrient issues referred to above, any discharge from the new domestic sewage associated with the development would either be subject to General Binding Rules under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2016 – or the permitting system and it is recognised that it is not role of the Local Planning Authority to focus on controlling pollution where it can be controlled by other pollution regulations (such as Environment Agency permitting). The NPPF also makes it clear that it should be assumed that these separate pollution control regimes will operate effectively.

8.90 Overall, it is concluded that subject to appropriate conditions being imposed, the proposed development would implement appropriate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), would avoid significant harm to the quality and yield of water resources and would not lead to a significant increase flood risk. On this basis, no conflict with Policies DP8 and DP12 (or the relevant provisions within the NPPF) have been identified.

Conclusion

8.91 In conclusion, the proposed replacement of Lime Tree Cottage, the refurbishment of heritage assets, the estate yard and the various associated works are considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan. Furthermore, the development design as a whole has sought to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park and its special qualities whilst also respecting the natural, built and historic environment, landscape character and biodiversity as required by Policies SP1 and DP2. It has also been demonstrated that, subject to appropriate mitigation being in place, the development would not give rise to significant adverse impacts upon local amenity or highway safety.

8.92 However, the overall size of the proposed main dwelling proposed would conflict with Policies DP35 and DP36 and the general principle of introducing a new residential development to the site (through the refurbishment and re-instatement of Park Cottage) conflicts with Policy SP19.

8.93 It is therefore necessary to have regard to any relevant material planning considerations in the overall planning balance, as required by Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

8.94 The Applicant makes the case the proposed development would be of an outstanding quality of design and, and in addition embraces significant landscape restoration and biodiversity enhancements. On this basis, it is stated that it is promoted more specifically under the provisions of the development plan and paragraphs 84e, 139, 189 and 212 of the NPPF.

8.95 As identified above, however, given that the site is not considered to be isolated for the purposes of NPPF paragraph 84, it is concluded that this would not be a relevant consideration for the purposes of this application. Notwithstanding this, it is agreed that, having regard to the design approach, the sustainability credentials of the development (which aims for Passivhaus Premium certification), the proposal to restore the various historic elements of the grade II listed park and garden (including the two grade II listed buildings within its grounds) and the proposed ecological enhancements, the proposal accords with NPPF paragraphs 139, 189 and 212. Specifically, the proposal would:

• Represent an outstanding and innovative design which would achieve a high levels of sustainability, and responds appropriately to the overall form and layout of its surroundings;
• Conserve and enhance landscape and scenic beauty within the New Forest National Park; and
• Conserve and enhance wildlife, cultural heritage and heritage assets.

8.96 For the same reasons, the proposal accords with the strategic objectives contained within the Local Plan, particularly with regards to protecting and enhancing the natural environment, local distinctiveness, cultural heritage and the historic environment of the National Park. The proposal also accords with the Local Plan’s strategic objectives of planning for the likely impacts of climate change and encouraging land management that sustain the special qualities of the National Park.

8.97 With regards to the identified conflict with Policy SP19 (the introduction of a new residential use into open countryside), this would need to be weighed against the benefits of restoring and refurbishing the Grade II listed building (Park Cottage). Consideration has been given to the poor condition of the building, its national importance, the proposal to sensitively restore its built form and to re-instate its historical use. Having regard to these considerations, it is concluded that, in accordance with Policy SP16 and NPPF paragraph 210, this element of the proposal would enable the appreciation of the significance and special interest of the heritage asset, would secure its optimum viable use (consistent also within its historical use), would, and would help secure its long term restoration.

8.98 It should also be recognised that the NPPF (paragraph 210) states that local planning authorities should take account of the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality. Paragraph 221 states that local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies, but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies. Alongside the fact that re-instating the original residential use within the building will ensure its retention and upkeep in the long term, its intended use as a holiday let will generate income which is to be re-invested into the building and Brockenhurst Park Estate more widely.

8.99 The location of Park Cottage (within close walking distance of Brockenhurst, its associated public transport links and local amenities) also accords with NPPF paragraph 110 and Policy SP11 in relation to locating development so as to reduce the need to travel by car.

8.100 Overall, it is concluded that the material considerations in this case significantly outweigh the identified conflict with the Development Plan (specifically Policy DP35). This is due to the substantial benefits which would be delivered by the development, the fact that the proposal when taken as a whole would be in accordance with the overarching objectives contained within the Local Plan alongside key policies which relate to conserving and enhancing the cultural heritage, historic environment and natural environment of the New Forest alongside planning for the likely impacts of climate change,

8.101 It is also considered that the proposal would not set a precedent for similar departures from policy because the development (and its context) is unique in that it seeks to re-instate a country house where one stood previously and also due to the extensive benefits to be achieved across Brockenhurst Park more widely both in the short term and through ensuring its viability in the long term. These circumstances are unlikely to be replicated on other sites in the National Park.

8.102 It is therefore recommended that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions and legal agreement.

9. RECOMMENDATION

Approve Conditionally (Legal Agreement)

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 plans and documents:

   Plans:

   • Proposed Site Plan – Reference P-001 Rev P2
   • Proposed Main House Site Plan – Reference P-002 Rev P1
   • Proposed Main House Ground Floorplan – Reference P-100 Rev P2
   • Proposed Main House First Floor Plan – Reference P-101 Rev P2
   • Proposed Main House Roof Plan – Reference P-102 Rev P2
   • Proposed Main House North Elevation – Reference P-200 Rev P3
   • Proposed Main House East Elevation (1 of 2) – Reference P-201.1 Rev P3
   • Proposed Main House East Elevation (2 of 2) – reference P-201.2 Rev P2
   • Proposed Main House South Elevation – Reference P-202 Rev P3
   • Proposed Main House West Elevation (1 of 2) – Reference P-203.1 Rev P3
   • Proposed Main House Section A-A – Reference P-250 Rev P3
   • Proposed Main House Section B-B – Reference P-251 Rev P3
   • Proposed Site Plan Dairy – Reference 23-010 Rev C
   • Proposed Floorplan Dairy – Reference 23-011 Rev D
   • Proposed Elevations Dairy – Reference 23-012 Rev C
   • Proposed Sections Dairy – Reference 23-020 Rev C
   • Proposed Site Plan Park – Reference 23-013 Rev D
   • Proposed Floorplan Park – Reference 23-014 Rev D
   • Proposed Elevations Park – Reference 23-015 Rev D
   • Proposed Section Park – Reference 23-021 Rev B
   • Proposed Park Car Port – Reference 23-019 Rev C
   • Proposed East Lodge Site Plan – Reference P-030 Rev P1
   • Proposed East Lodge Ground Floorplan – Reference P-110 Rev P2
   • Proposed East Lodge Elevations – Reference P-210 Rev P2
   • Proposed east Lodge Roof Plan – Reference P-111 rev P1
   • Block and Roof Plan – Reference A-SX-103
   • Estate barns – Ground Floor Plan, Elevations – Reference A-S3-104 Rev B
   • Lighting Strategy – References 1272-LB-EX-XX-DR-E-7080-31 P06, 1272-LB-EX-XX-DR-E-7080-32 P06, 1272-LB-EX-XX-DR-E-7080-33 P05, 1272-LB-EX-XX-DR-E-7080-34 P05, 1272-LB-EX-XX-DR-E-7080-35 P05, 1272-LB-EX-XX-DR-E-7080-36 P05

   Documents:

   • Flood Risk Assessment Version 4 (5 December 2025, Fairhurst)
   • Construction Management Plan (Uploaded 16 September 2025 PAD Studio)
   • Nitrates Technical Note (Holbury Consultancy Service 28th May 2025)
   • Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (Uploaded 12 August 2025 Leof Landscape)
   • Bat Hibernation Survey 2024-25 (David-Watts Ecology 31 March 2025)
   • Bat Survey (David-Watts Ecology 10 October 2024)
   • Sustainability Statement (Ecospheric June 2024)

   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 site and its surroundings in accordance with Policies SP16, SP17, DP18 and DP2 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 (August 2019).

3. The Biodiversity Gain Plan, to be submitted and agreed in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority in accordance with paragraphs 13 and 14 of Part 2 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, shall be prepared broadly in accordance with the approved BNG Metric and draft BNG Plan.

   Reason: to ensure delivery of the requisite biodiversity net gain and to accord with Policy SP6 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 (August 2019).

4. The development shall not commence until a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (the HMMP), prepared in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan and including:

   • (a) a non-technical summary;
   • (b) the roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering the HMMP;
   • (c) the planned habitat creation and enhancement works to create or improve habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan;
   • (d) the management measures to maintain habitat in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan for a period of 30 years from the completion of development; and
   • (e) the monitoring methodology and frequency in respect of the created or enhanced habitat to be submitted to the local planning authority,

   has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The created and/or enhanced habitat specified in the approved HMMP shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved HMMP.

   Reason: to ensure delivery of the requisite biodiversity net gain and to accord with Policy SP6 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 (August 2019).

5. No development shall take place on either the approved main house or the approved East Gate Lodge until the proposed slab levels in relationship to the existing ground levels set to an agreed datum shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. Development shall only take place in accordance with those details which have been approved.

   Reason: To ensure that the development takes place in an appropriate way in accordance with Policy DP2 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016 - 2036 (August 2019).

6. No development shall take place on the approved main house until an Energy Assessment for the building has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and has been approved in writing. The Energy Assessment shall include the following details:

   • A. Passivhaus Certification
   • B. Whole life cycle carbon assessment
   • C. Resource and waste strategy
   • D. Carbon Emission factors
   • E. Water efficiency measures
   • F. Renewable energy technologies

   The assessment should demonstrate how onsite energy demand and emissions have been addressed in accordance with the energy hierarchy approach.

   Development shall be carried out fully in accordance with the approved details and the agreed measures shall be retained for the lifetime of the approved development.

   Reason: To ensure the development incorporates sound sustainable design, good construction principles, good environmental practices, improved water and energy efficiency, small scale renewable and low carbon energy generation as required by Policies DP18 and SP11 and paragraph 161 of the NPPF.

7. No development shall take place on each phase of the development (as outlined in Condition 26) until a scheme of landscaping for that phase has been submitted to and approved 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) a method, timetable 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 safeguard trees and natural features and to ensure that the development takes place in an appropriate way and to comply with Policy DP2 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016 - 2036 (August 2019).

8. No development shall take place above slab level on the approved estate barn until samples or exact details of the facing and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. Development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details approved.

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

9. No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and has been approved in writing. The drainage scheme shall be informed by the approved Flood Risk Assessment (August 2024, Fairhurst Consulting) and shall include the following information:

   • a. Site specific infiltration testing
   • b. Rationale for proposed soakaway design having regard to existing ground conditions / water table
   • c. Final drainage design including Sustainable Urban Drainage Features along with a timetable for implementation and measures for maintenance in the long term

   The approved drainage measures shall be implemented fully in accordance with the approved details and implementation scheme and shall be retained for the lifetime of the approved development.

   Reason: In order to ensure that the drainage arrangements are appropriate and in accordance with Policy DP2 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016 - 2036 (August 2019) and paragraph 182 of the NPPF.

10. Prior to the commencement of the development of the approved estate building / barn (as identified on Drawing A-S3-104 Rev B) (including site and scrub clearance), measures for ecological enhancement (including timescales for implementing these measures) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority. The measures thereby approved shall be implemented and retained at the site in perpetuity in accordance with the approved details. The measures shall be based on the recommendations set out in the ecological report approved as part of this planning application.

    Reason: To safeguard protected species in accordance with Policies DP2 and SP6 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016 - 2036 (August 2019).

11. Prior to any of the approved works being undertaken on the Dairy and Park Cottage, a barn owl survey shall be undertaken in respect of these buildings and full details of nesting bird mitigation, compensation and enhancement (including barn owls, swallows and other species where necessary) to be informed by suitable survey work shall be submitted and agreed in writing. These details shall include the location, position and specification of the proposed measures alongside a timetable for their implementation. Development shall proceed in fully in accordance with the agreed details and maintained for the lifetime of the approved development unless otherwise agreed in writing.

    Reason: To safeguard protected species in accordance with Policies DP2 and SP6 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016 - 2036 (August 2019).

12. No demolition or development shall take place within the area indicated 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 scheme investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and first approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority.

    Reason: The development is located in an area of archaeological significance where the recording of archaeological remains should be carried out prior to the development taking place in accordance with Policy DP2 and SP16 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016 - 2036 (August 2019).

13. No development shall commence on site until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CTMP must address the following matters:

    • Routing and Access
    • Site Logistics
    • Vehicle Management
    • Operational Hours
    • Community Liaison
    • Safety and Environment

    Development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved CTMP throughout the construction period.

    Reason: To avoid unacceptable adverse impacts associated with traffic and access as required by Policy DP2 of the New Forest National Park Local Plan (2019).

14. Prior to the commencement of development ecological mitigation for the Solent and New Forest Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Ramsar sites shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. The ecological mitigation may take the form of a planning obligation which secures financial contributions in accordance with the Authority’s adopted Mitigation Strategy and the Solent (SRMP) Explanatory Note.

    Reason: To safeguard sites of international ecological importance in accordance with Policies SP5 and SP6 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 (August 2019), the Authority’s Mitigation Strategy and the SRMP.

15. Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions relating to contamination have been complied with.

    If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 19 relating to the reporting of unexpected contamination has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

    Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policies DP2, SP6, DP8 and paragraph 187 of the NPPF

16. No development shall take place until an investigation and risk assessment to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site of the proposed Main Building (whether or not it originates on the site) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

    The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The report of the findings must include:

    • (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
    • (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:
      • human health
      • property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes
      • adjoining land
      • groundwaters and surface waters
      • ecological systems
      • archaeological sites and ancient monuments
    • (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

    This must be conducted in accordance with the Environment Agency's technical guidance, Land Contamination Risk Management (LCRM).

    Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policies DP2, SP6, DP8 and paragraph 187 of the NPPF

17. Where contamination has been identified within the approved investigation and risk assessment, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be submitted to and approved in writing before development commenced on the site. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures.

    The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

    The approved remediation scheme shall be implemented in full and in accordance with the approved details. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

    Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policies DP2, SP6, DP8 and paragraph 187 of the NPPF

18. Within 2 months following the completion of measures identified in the approved contaminated land remediation scheme, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

    Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policies DP2, SP6, DP8 and paragraph 187 of the NPPF

19. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified an investigation and risk assessment must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

    Where the assessment identifies the need for a remediation scheme, the scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. The remediation scheme shall be implemented fully in accordance with the approved details.

    Within two months following the completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 18.

    Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policies DP2, SP6, DP8 and paragraph 187 of the NPPF.

20. Prior to their first use on the main house, details of the following construction materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

    • Facing and roofing materials;
    • Rainwater goods;
    • Treatment of verges and bargeboards;
    • Windows and doors;
    • Rooflights;
    • External lighting;
    • Extracts, vents or flues; and
    • Gates.

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

    Reason: To protect the character and architectural interest of the building in accordance with Policies DP2, DP18 and SP16 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016 - 2036 (August 2019).

21. Prior to their first use on the East Lodge, details of the following construction materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

    • Facing and roofing materials;
    • Rainwater goods;
    • Treatment of verges and bargeboards;
    • Windows and doors;
    • External lighting;
    • Extracts, vents or flues.

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

    Reason: To protect the character and architectural interest of the building in accordance with Policies DP2, DP18 and SP16 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016 - 2036 (August 2019).

22. Prior to their first use on the outbuilding associated with Park Cottage details or samples of the following construction materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

    • Facing and roofing materials;
    • Rainwater goods; and
    • External door details.

    Development shall then proceed in accordance with the approved details.

    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).

23. The development hereby permitted in respect of Park Cottage (Drawing Reference 23-013 Rev D ) shall not be occupied until:

    1. A water efficiency calculation in accordance with the Government's National Calculation Methodology for assessing water efficiency in new dwellings has been undertaken which demonstrates that no more than 110 litres of water per person per day shall be consumed within the development, and this calculation has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority;
    2. A mitigation package addressing the additional nutrient input arising from the development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such mitigation package shall address all of the additional nutrient load imposed on protected European sites by the development when fully occupied and shall allow the Local Planning Authority to ascertain on the basis of the best available scientific evidence that such additional nutrient loading will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the protected European sites, having regard to the conservation objectives for those sites; and
    3. All measures forming part of that mitigation package have been provided to the Local Planning Authority.

    The development shall be carried out in accordance with and subject to the above details.

    Reason: There is existing evidence of high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the water environment with evidence of eutrophication at some European designated nature conservation sites in the Solent catchment. To ensure that the proposal may proceed as sustainable development, there is a duty upon the Local Planning Authority to ensure that sufficient mitigation is provided against any impacts which might arise upon the designated sites. In coming to this decision, the Authority has had regard to Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and Policy SP5 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan (2016 - 2036).

24. The approved works to the Dairy as identified on Drawing Numbers 23-010 Rev C, 23-011 Rev D and 23-012 Rev C shall not commence until:

    1. the car port to Park Cottage has been built as per the design and specifications in Figure 4 and paragraph, Paragraph 6.2.4 of the Bat Hibernation Survey 2024-25, Davidson-Watts Ecology, 31 March 2025 and Drawing 23-019 Rev C and;
    2. Three crevice and three cavity woodcrete bat boxes have been placed on nearby semi-mature or mature trees at a height of 3 to 5 metres facing west or south as set out in paragraph 6.2.5 of the Bat Hibernation Survey 2024-25, Davidson-Watts Ecology, 31 March 2025</