Planning Committee Full Reports 17 November 2026

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view

2. POLICIES

Development Plan Designations

Tree Preservation Order

Principal Development Plan Policies

• DP2 General development principles
• DP18 Design principles
• DP53 Maneges
• SP6 The natural environment
• SP7 Landscape character
• SP15 Tranquillity

Supplementary Planning Documents

Horse-related development SPD

NPPF

• Sec 3 - Decision-making policies
• Sec 4 - Achieving sustainable development
• Sec 14 - Achieving well-designed places
• Sec 19 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

3. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

4. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Landford Parish Council: Recommend refusal for the reasons listed below:

Councillors felt that this application would create potential conflict with local planning policies and conservation. There were concerns with highway safety and traffic generation, due to the increase in horseboxes and lorries, as well as additional residents entering and exiting the premises; there was a contravention with DP51 because of the impact on back-up grazing for the commoners; the application does not meet the criteria for DP53 with the creation of manages; it was not in-keeping with SP7 landscape character and visual impact on the area; and SP15 tranquillity would be impacted with increased noise. The design principles of the lodges did not meet the principals of DP18.

5. CONSULTEES

Ecologist

Comments on receipt of additional information (including Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA) and clarifications:

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)- Given the applicant has reaffirmed that the trees are not directly impacted by the works and the trees are not proposed for works due to increase human risks associated with the new use, an ecological objection on those grounds at this stage is not merited. It would be important for the applicant to ensure their ecologists review this matter to discharge the condition, and ensure the baseline is accurate before any reservation of off-site units is made.

Bats- Accordance with policy has been shown.

Great Crested Newts- Sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate policy accordance.

Reptiles- A sensitive site clearance would be sufficient to avoid harm (to be secured through a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

Initial objection:

Lack of suitable information, including BNG metrics requiring revision to address tree loss.

Application is not supported by a PEA and information is therefore lacking. The development is within a red zone for District licensing meaning presence in suitable habitat is likely. Accordance with policy SP6 and legal duties has not been demonstrated.

Tree Officer

No objection.

Forest Falconry is subject to Woodland Tree Preservation Order (ref – NFNPA/0018/07) that protects most of the trees growing on site. This is therefore a constraint to the proposed development.

To support the planning application an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan have been submitted.

The area of the proposed menage is free from tree cover and positioned on the edge of a wider paddock/field. To the southwest is an area of mixed tree cover with limited past management. Several large Scots Pines are noted to be dead while a number of mature Silver Birch are in poor health and condition. Select trees are specified to be felled, however, such works are necessary regardless of any development related proposal.

The construction of the manege will not have a detrimental impact on the health and amenity of any protected trees.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

One representation of objection on the following grounds:

• Increase in the volume of people, cars, horse boxes and horses using the entrance to the site which is opposite our property.
• Recent change of site from a field and barn with a few cows, to an active equestrian centre with pairs of horses riding out down the lane several times daily and multiple cars entering the site.
• New Road is increasingly busy with cars and this has the potential to create a dangerous situation.
• Larger vehicles involved with the site so far have already driven over the pavement outside our neighbour's house and damaged his hedge as the turning circle was insufficient to get on or off the road.
• We can only assume that this could be the case again with the new application either with its development or through large horseboxes and lorries accessing the site.

One representation of comment:

• If the manege is for the sole use of horses stabled within the yard, then I do not object to the construction of a menage.
• The current access to the site is such that often delivery vehicles have to travel over pavements, verges and encroach on hedges and other boundaries.
• If horses from off-site were to use the manege I would object on the basis of increased traffic flows and associated nuisance.

7. RELEVANT HISTORY

Adjacent Site (to South):

Application under Part 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 in respect of the siting, design and external appearance of an agricultural barn (10/95197) agricultural prior approval not required on 04 June 2010.

Adjacent Site (to West): extensive planning history, most recent applications listed below:

• Siting of three log cabins to provide residential accommodation for rural workers; associated hardstanding and works (26/00974FULL)- pending decision.
• Application for Outline Planning Permission for rural workers dwelling and associated works (26/00973OUT)- pending decision.
• Outline application (all matters reserved) for a permanent rural worker's dwelling with annexe and 3 no. ancillary rural workers dwellings (25/01345OUT) refused on 25 March 2026
• Erection of 2no. hack pens; 2no. blocks of imprint pens; 3no. eagle pens; extensions to 2no. aviary buildings; associated works (25/00660)- pending decision.
• 3no. imprint pens (demolition of existing); incubation room; feed room (24/00403FULL) granted on 26 September 2025.
• Increased height of existing and approved hack pens; replacement attached catch rooms; change of materials (24/00335FULL) granted on 11 June 2024.
• Change of Use of land to falconry activities; construction of 2no. hack pens (18/00427) refused on 03 September 2018. Subsequent appeal allowed on 11 October 2019.

8. ASSESSMENT

Application Site

8.1 The 0.2-hectare application site is located to the north west of New Road and north east of the existing falconry site in Landford. Residential development lies opposite to the south east of New Road.

8.2 A barn lies between the site and New Road. The applicant's Planning Statement sets out that this is now in use as a stable for four horses and two ponies.

8.3 Trees the subject of a woodland Tree Preservation Order (TPO) are located on the site and to the west and east of the site.

8.4 The site is currently fenced by post and rail fencing and used as a horse paddock.

8.5 The site is located in Environment Agency Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding) and within a high-risk zone for Great Crested Newts.

Proposed Development

8.6 The application is for a manege of dimensions 20 metres by 50 metres. The manege would be enclosed by a post and rail fence 1.5 metres in height. No lighting is proposed.

8.7 The manege would be accessed from the existing access from New Road or from the applicant's wider land holding. The manege is proposed for private use only by the landowner and their friends and families. The applicant has indicated that the site would be limited to a maximum of ten horses.

8.8 The surface materials would comprise silica sand with a flexiride surface. This would be laid over a membrane and stone surface.

Policy Context

8.9 Policy N4 (1) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (August 2026) states that substantial weight should be placed on the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of Protected Landscapes, and to conserving and enhancing wildlife and cultural heritage in National Parks and the Broads.

8.10 Policy DP3 (1) of the NPPF sets out that development proposals should respond to their context (the history, character and features of their site and setting) so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings.

8.11 Policy DP53 of the New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 (herein after referred to as "the Local Plan") relates to maneges and states that they will be permitted where they do not result in any detrimental impact on the landscape and ecology of the National Park and they do not involve the installation of lighting.

8.12 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 DP18 seeks to ensure development is contextually appropriate and does not harm key visual features, landscape setting or other valued components of the landscape.

8.13 Policy SP6 (The natural environment) sets out that proposals should protect, maintain and enhance nationally, regionally and locally important sites and features of the natural environment, including habitats and species of biodiversity importance.

8.14 Policies SP15 and SP7 of the Local Plan relate to tranquillity and landscape character. New development should conserve and enhance the landscape character of the National Park and reduce the impacts of light pollution on the dark skies of the National Park.

8.15 The New Forest National Park Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation stage has closed. Further details are available at Local Plan review 2025-27 - New Forest National Park and draft Policy DP19 relates to proposed maneges. Policy DM4 of the NPPF (2026) confirms that relevant policies in emerging development plans may be given weight according to the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given). The draft plan has not yet been submitted for examination (due to take place in December 2026) and therefore, in accordance with Policy DM4 of the NPPF, limited weight can be given to its draft policies.

Consideration

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

8.17 The key issues in this case are:

• The principle of the proposed development;
• The impact on the landscape and protected trees;
• The impact on ecology;
• The impact on neighbour amenity;
• Highway considerations; and
• Other material considerations.

Principle of Development, Landscape and Trees

8.18 The application site is located outside of the defined New Forest villages and is located within open countryside for the purposes of planning policy.

8.19 The general principle of the proposed development is established through Policy DP53 subject to specific criteria being met in relation to preserving the landscape and ecology of the New Forest and avoiding the introduction of lighting. The supporting text in paragraph 8.52 sets out that the environmental impact is likely to be acceptable where proposals are contained within or closely related to an existing group of buildings and makes use of materials that blend in well with the New Forest Landscape.

8.20 The Guidelines for Horse-Related Development Supplementary Planning Document does not form part of the statutory development plan for the New Forest National Park but provides additional detailed guidance and is a material consideration. The adopted SPD states that the standard manege normally measures 20m x 40m and comprises a level surfaced area enclosed by a kickboard and post and rail fencing. As a flat surface is needed for a manege, it is essential to choose a location where the re-grading of the land surface is not necessary.

8.21 The application site is relatively flat and the proposed manege would require minimal cut and fill. The site is set back from New Road and woodland trees are located on the southwestern side of the site. There is a building located to the south east of the site (which was the subject of prior notification reference: 10/95197 (07 June 2010) for an agricultural barn). Whilst the north western boundary is open, the eastern boundary is adjacent to a track with trees lying further east. The materials proposed would be sympathetic to the landscape and the development would be enclosed by appropriate post and rail fencing. When considered against the requirements in the development plan and SPD for development to be contained within or closely related to an existing group of buildings, it is considered that the proposed development is such that it could be assimilated into the landscape against the backdrop of woodland on relatively level ground using appropriate materials with no external lighting proposed.

8.22 The proposed manege would be 20 metres by 50 metres in size which would be larger than the standard size referred to in the SPD (and the emerging New Forest National Park Local Plan Review policy). The applicant has stated that the size of the arena is firstly for riders that are learning, having a larger area is slightly easier to negotiate corners, turning and speed; and secondly because it could be accommodated in the area from the barn to the first paddock which is currently used to exercise the horses. In the specific context of this site, having regard to the topography and existing features, it is considered that the proposed size of the manege could be accommodated without detriment to landscape character.

8.23 In relation to the impact on protected trees, the wider falconry site and part of the application site is subject to a woodland Tree Preservation Order (TPO). An Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan have been submitted with the application. Tree T22 is within the application red-line boundary and is to be retained. The Authority's Tree Officer has been consulted and has noted that the area of the proposed manege is free from tree cover and positioned on the edge of a wider field. It is noted that tree works are required to trees to the south west regardless of any development related proposals. The Tree Officer has concluded that the construction of the manege will not have a detrimental impact on the health and amenity of any protected trees and has no objection subject to condition.

Impact on Ecology

8.24 In relation to ecological impacts, the application does not include any lighting (and associated impact on ecology) and this is consistent with the requirements of policy DP53(b) of the adopted National Park Local Plan (2019). Additional information has been provided in the form of a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA). The application site is not located within any European designations and no significant impacts on these sites are anticipated.

8.25 The appraisal makes recommendations for mitigation to avoid impacts on habitats and protected species. Following receipt of the PEA, the Authority's Ecologist has no objection and recommends that any consent secures implementation with the recommendations of the PEA report and in particular adherence to the recommendation for a final Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

8.26 It is recognised that biodiversity net gain (BNG) is required under the statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This seeks to ensure development proposals deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. The required BNG would be achieved through the purchase of off-site units, which is a recognised part of the national system for delivering BNG.

8.27 As noted by the Authority's Ecologist, the baseline BNG metric should address any features where a development and its associated operations result in impacts on habitats including trees/ woodland. It will be important to establish an accurate BNG baseline before any off-site units are purchased at the discharge of condition stage.

Neighbour Amenity and Highway Considerations

8.28 The development is proposed for private (non-commercial) use and conditions can reasonably be imposed to secure this. The application site is located over 65 metres from the nearest residential property, with intervening vegetation and features, including New Road. There would be no unacceptable adverse impacts on amenity in terms of visual intrusion, overlooking or shading.

8.29 Concerns have been raised by the Parish Council and a third parties in relation to highway safety, access and traffic generation. The existing vehicular access would remain in use and there are no proposed alterations which would affect the operation of the public highway. The Planning Statement states that the manege will be for use by the applicant's family and for non-commercial use therefore will not generate any new vehicular trips. The development would therefore not lead to any significant implications for highway safety.

8.30 Policy TR6 of the NPPF recognises that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. In this instance, subject to condition to secure non-commercial use, the proposed development would not result in any significant harmful impact upon highway safety.

Other

8.31 The PEA and Ecologist refer to the need to prevent adverse impacts on water quality. Details of drainage would be secured by condition and a CEMP would be secured by condition for the construction period.

8.32 Landford Parish Council have raised concerns about the loss of potential back up grazing land for New Forest commoners. The application site is privately owned and has not been used to support commoning previously. The site is not located adjacent to the Open Forest and instead forms part of a wider private landholding and enterprise that is not associated with commoning. It is not considered reasonable to sustain an objection on these grounds.

Conclusion

8.33 In conclusion, the general principle of the development is established through Policy DP53. The proposed development can be assimilated into the landscape without adverse impact on trees, ecology or neighbour amenity and would not give rise to unacceptable highway impacts. Permission is therefore recommended subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant subject to conditions

Condition(s)

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

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

2. Development shall only be carried out in accordance with drawing nos:

   • 388.21i.001- Location Plan
   • 388.21i.002- Block Plans
   • 388.21i.003- Proposed Plans
   • RTC-RW-FF-BS5837-V3 Appendix 1- Tree Protection Plan (28/10/2026)

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

   Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the building in accordance with Policies SP16, SP17, DP18 and DP2 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016- 2036 (August 2019).

3. The trees on the site which are shown to be retained on the approved plans shall be protected during all site clearance, demolition and building works in accordance with the measures set out in the submitted Rowden Treescapes Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan (ref - RTC/RW/FF/BS5837/V3 (28/10/2023)) while in accordance with the recommendations as set out in BS5837:2012.

   Reason: To safeguard trees and natural features which are important to the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policies SP6 and DP2 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016- 2036 (August 2019).

4. Prior to commencement of development, a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. The plan shall include:

   • Details of a compound to be provided for the storage of materials, machinery, waste materials and spoil
   • Details of the disposal of any spoil from the site
   • Measures that will be implemented to avoid or mitigate constructional impacts on protected species during the construction phase.

   All materials, machinery, waste materials and spoil shall be stored within the approved compound.

   Development shall take place in accordance with the approved CEMP.

   Reason: To safeguard protected species and in accordance with Policies DP2, SP5 and SP6 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016- 2036 (August 2019)

5. No development shall take place until details of the means of disposal of surface water from the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority.

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

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

6. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the National Park Authority, development shall only take place in accordance with the recommendations for ecological mitigation and enhancement which are set out in the ecological report (Ecological Impact Assessment, prepared by Abricon Ltd, dated 09 July 2026) hereby approved. The specified measures shall be implemented and retained at the site in perpetuity.

   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).

7. Prior to the commencement of the development, the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Authority:

   Evidence that a minimum of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain, calculated by reference to the statutory biodiversity metric, has been secured by means of the purchase of either (i) off-site biodiversity units sold in the off-site private market by an accredited provider, or (ii) statutory biodiversity credits.

   Reason: to ensure delivery of the statutory biodiversity net gain required by the Environment Act 2021 and to accord with Policy SP6 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 (August 2019)

8. The manege the subject of this permission shall only be used for the exercising of horses belonging to the owner of the site (or their successors in title) and shall not be used for any commercial riding or training purposes or as an equestrian show arena.

   Reason: The use of the manege on a commercial basis would cause harm by reason of increased activity and pressure on the National Park and this would be contrary to Policy DP53 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016 - 2036 (August 2019).

9. No external lighting shall be installed on the site unless details of such proposals have been submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority.

   Reason: To protect the amenities of the area in accordance with Policies DP2 and SP15 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016 - 2036 (August 2019).

Informative(s):

1. All bats and their roosts are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) and are further protected under Regulation 41 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Should any bats or evidence of bats be found prior to or during development, work must stop immediately and Natural England contacted for further advice. This is a legal requirement under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and applies to whoever carries out the work. All contractors on site should be made aware of this requirement and given the relevant contact number for Natural England, which is 0300 060 3900.

2. The applicant is reminded that, under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), it is an offence to (amongst other things): deliberately capture, disturb, injure, or kill great crested newts; damage or destroy a breeding or resting place; intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to a resting or sheltering place. Planning permission for a development does not provide a defence against prosecution under this legislation. Should great crested newts be found at any stage of the development works, then all works should cease, and a professional and/or suitably qualified and experienced ecologist (or Natural England) should be contacted for advice on any special precautions before continuing, including the need for a licence.

   If at any point during construction works any great crested newts are identified, then the following instructions must be strictly adhered to:

   • Stop all works immediately and leave the area
   • Inform an ecologist immediately who will provide further guidance / instructions
   • Do not try to handle or rescue a great crested newt
   • Do not resume construction works until advised it is safe to do so by an ecologist

   It should be noted that if an individual great crested newt is found at any point during the works, a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) or District Licence (DL) may be required to permit works that would potentially cause disturbance and otherwise commit an offence under the relevant legislation.

   If the applicant wishes to completely avoid any risks relating to great crested newts, they have the option to enquire for the New Forest National Park Authority’s District Licence, which provides full legal cover for any impacts to great crested newts and therefore removes the risk of having to stop works if great crested newts are found on site. More details on the District Licensing Scheme operated by the council can be found at https://naturespaceuk.com/.

3. The effect of paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is that planning permission granted for the development of land in England is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition ''(the biodiversity gain condition'') that development may not begin unless:

   (a) a Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted to the planning authority, and

   (b) the planning authority has approved the plan.

   The planning authority, for the purposes of determining whether to approve a Biodiversity Gain Plan if one is required in respect of this permission would be the New Forest National Park Authority.

   There are statutory exemptions and transitional arrangements which mean that the biodiversity gain condition does not always apply.

   Based on the information available this permission is considered to be one which will require the approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun because none of the statutory exemptions or transitional arrangements listed below are considered to apply.

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view.

2. POLICIES

Development Plan Designations

• Conservation Area
• Flood Zone
• Public Right of Way

Principal Development Plan Policies

• DP2 General development principles
• DP12 Flood risk
• DP13 Coastal development
• DP18 Design principles
• DP37 Outbuildings
• SP6 The natural environment
• SP7 Landscape character
• SP15 Tranquillity
• SP16 The historic and built environment
• SP17 Local distinctiveness

Supplementary Planning Documents

Design Guide SPD

NPPF

• Sec 3 - Decision-making policies
• Sec 4 - Achieving sustainable development
• Sec 14 - Achieving well-designed places
• Sec 18 - Managing flood risk and coastal change
• Sec 19 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
• Sec 20 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

3. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

4. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Milford on Sea Parish Council: Recommend permission.

5. CONSULTEES

Tree Officer: No objection

Building Design and Conservation Team: No in principle objection to a replacement outbuilding for a sympathetic outbuilding but raise considerable concerns over the proposed design in this highly prominent and sensitive location within the National Park and Keyhaven Conservation Area. The design has not been informed by the historic or architectural character of the conservation area or the Authority's Design Guide.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

None received.

7. RELEVANT HISTORY

Garage and Store (LYB/XX/00619) granted on 04 May 1950.

8. ASSESSMENT

Application Site

8.1 The application site comprises of a detached bungalow with three single storey outbuildings to the north west of the dwelling. The wider site has desire paths mown into meadow land terminating at a small footbridge onto the public footpath. Screening of the wider site along the west and south boundaries is limited, enabling mostly uninterrupted views of Keyhaven Harbour and across to the Isle of Wight. The dwelling is clearly prominent and exposed to views to and from the Solent Way public footpath and the wider landscape including the salt marshes and seawalls. The dwelling is accessed by a gravel track. There are four other properties in the immediate vicinity with only one neighbour adjoining the site. The site lies within the Keyhaven Conservation Area and within Environment Agency Flood Zone 3.

Proposed Development

8.2 This application seeks planning permission for a two-storey outbuilding in the form of a triple-bay garage with office over and a lean-to. It would be oak-framed with a natural slate roof and would be located on the north west side of the dwelling. The outbuilding would replace the three existing single storey outbuildings which would be demolished.

8.3 From lower ground level, the outbuilding would be around 6m high, 11.5 m long (including the lean-to) and 6.5m in width. The outbuilding would have a floor area of circa 93 sq. m.

Policy Context

8.4 Policy N4 (1) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (August 2026) states that substantial weight should be placed on the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of Protected Landscapes, and to conserving and enhancing wildlife and cultural heritage in National Parks and the Broads. The defined 'special qualities' of the New Forest National Park (listed in Annex 1 of the adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016 - 2036) include, "…the New Forest's outstanding natural beauty: the sights, sounds and smells of ancient woodland with large veteran trees, heathland, bog, autumn colour and an unspoilt coastline, with views of the Solent and Isle of Wight."

8.5 Policy S5 of the NPPF refers to the principle of development outside settlements and states:

" 1. Only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, as set out in the following list. These should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework:

…

c. The reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of an existing building, provided that the existing building is of permanent and substantial construction, is lawful in planning terms, and any extension or alteration will not result in a disproportionate increase in size compared to the existing building25. In the case of proposals for a replacement building, it should be for the same use and not disproportionately larger than the one it replaces…"

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

8.7 Policy HE5 of the NPPF sets out the requirements for a heritage statement where proposals may affect the significance, including any contribution made by their setting, and the potential effect of the proposal on their significance. The assessment should identify whether the proposals would likely have a positive effect, no effect, result in harm to the significance of a heritage asset, or the total loss of significance of a heritage asset.

8.8 Policy HE6 of the NPPF sets out that, when considering the effect of a development proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset (such as a conservation area), substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight.

8.9 Policy HE9 states that development proposals within or affecting the significance of conservation areas should retain and conserve buildings or features that make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area where possible and consider the area's special architectural or historic interest (as identified as part of the designation of the conservation area) in the design of the development.

8.10 Policy SP16 of the New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016- 2036 (herein after referred to as "the Local Plan") requires development proposals within the National Park to conserve and enhance the significance or special interest of designated or non-designated heritage assets, i.e. they should: (a)(iii) make a positive contribution to, or better reveal, or enhance the appreciation of, the significance or special interest of a heritage asset or its setting; and (iv) help secure the long-term conservation of a heritage asset. Proposals will be resisted where they would harm the significance or special interest of a heritage asset (designated or undesignated) unless any harm is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal, proportionate to the degree of harm and significance of the asset, including securing its optimum viable use.

8.11 Policies SP15, DP13 and DP18 of the Local Plan relate to tranquillity, coastal development and design principles within the National Park, where new development should reduce the impacts of light pollution on the dark skies of the National Park, have regard to the importance of seaward and landward views and achieve the highest standards of design with special regard to the enhancing the built and historic environment of the New Forest and providing contextually appropriate design that does not harm key visual features or landscape setting.

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

8.13 Policy DP12 of the Local Plan will not permit development proposals if they would increase the risk of coastal, fluvial or surface flooding. Policy F7 of the NPPF sets out that development proposals should not present a risk from flooding to potential occupiers, users or visitors, and should not increase flood risk elsewhere. Development should be safe throughout its lifetime; with any residual risk safely managed; and the development appropriately flood resistant and resilient.

8.14 The New Forest National Park Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation stage has closed. Further details are available at Local Plan review 2025-27 - New Forest National Park. The draft Local Plan proposes the identification of a Coastal Change Management Area between Hurst Spit and Lymington in response to the likely changes to the coastline over the course of the Plan period to 2043. Policy DM4 of the NPPF (2026) confirms that relevant policies in emerging development plans may be given weight according to the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given). The draft plan has not yet been submitted for examination (due to take place in December 2026) and therefore, in accordance with Policy DM4 of the NPPF, limited weight can be given to its draft policies.

Consideration

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

8.16 The key issues in this case are compliance with Policy DP37; the impact on heritage assets; the impact on the landscape and character of the area; the impact on neighbouring amenity; flood risk considerations; and the impact on ecology.

Principle of Development

8.17 The proposed outbuilding would be located within the residential curtilage without reducing private amenity space to an unacceptable level and would be used for purposes incidental to the dwelling. There is no objection in principle to the demolition of the existing outbuildings.

8.18 However, at circa 93 square metres the proposed scale of the outbuilding would rival that of the dwelling. Based on the plans and scaling information provided, the proposed outbuilding would have a similar footprint to the existing outbuildings, however, the outbuilding would only be circa 0.5m lower than the main ridge height of the bungalow when measured from the lower ground levels and the outbuilding would be significantly higher than the existing outbuilding structures.

8.19 The north east elevation cross section indicates that the dwelling is on land approximately 1m higher and considering the difference in land levels, the outbuilding would be visually dominant on all sides of the bungalow. This would be particularly evident on the north east elevation. The proposed outbuilding would have an external footprint of around 81.2 sqm (only 42sqm less than the dwelling) and in terms of floorspace, the proposed total floorspace would be around 93sqm, which is around 9sqm less than the existing bungalow. Its scale and bulky appearance would be substantial. Overall, it is not considered to be "…proportionate and clearly subservient to the dwelling in terms of design, scale, size, height and massing" as required by Policy DP37. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy DP37 of the Local Plan and also S5 1. c. of the NPPF.

8.20 In addition, in relation to the proposed design, the Authority's Design Guide SPD (2022) states that new garages can be extremely large and bulky. It further sets out that these are alien features in the landscape; it is far better to break up buildings rather than to have such dominating features; and they should be low-key in design and appearance (paragraph 4.17). It is considered that the proposed design does not accord with the Authority’s design guidance and has produced a regimented, large and bulky outbuilding that appears incongruous within the open rural landscape.

Impact on Heritage Assets, Landscape and Character of Area

8.21 Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended requires that with respect to development affecting buildings or other land in a conservation area, ‘special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

8.22 Section 4.2, paragraph 30 of the Keyhaven Conservation Character Appraisal highlights that the built environment in this part of the Keyhaven Conservation Area has developed in a sporadic and scattered manner. Lyndon is one of these dwellings. Lyndon and Saltmarsh, dating to the inter-war period, are two small, hipped roof bungalows with verandas under over-sailing roofs, which are particularly prominent in views from the long-distance Keyhaven marshes footpath to the south. Paragraph 31 continues to state that these buildings enhance the conservation area, represent good local vernacular detailing and reflect the cultural history of the area.

8.23 The Authority's Building Design and Conservation Team has been consulted and notes that the site is located in an open position on the Solent Coastline and visible from the footpath of the Solent Way (part of the England Coast Path). In addition, that the Keyhaven Conservation Area is noted for:

• Its dispersed linear pattern of development along a minor road from the small medieval port to its agricultural hinterland with 19th and 20th century infill development;
• Its strong maritime history and coastal character with salt marshes contrasted with the surrounding agricultural setting;
• The mix of vernacular workers cottages and high status farms and villas in traditional brick, thatch, tile, and slate; and
• The surrounding marshes, mudflats, and Hurst Spit with restrictive internal but expansive outward views.

8.24 Further, that the unique character of this conservation area stems from its coastal location, on the edge of the Solent. Several large open spaces are marked which include the open area of land to the south of Saltmarsh and Lyndon that are considered important to the historic setting of the settlement.

8.25 The application has been submitted with a Design, Access, and Heritage Statement that does not appear to reference the Conservation Area Character Appraisal or any aspects of its significance. It is not clear from the document how the proposed design has considered the special qualities of the designated heritage asset and currently it is not considered that the application meets the requirements of Policy HE5 of the NPPF nor SP16 of the Local Plan.

8.26 Whilst the proposed materials would be acceptable in the context of the conservation area, and the removal of the existing buildings would be welcomed, the proposed design of the replacement outbuilding, by virtue of its design, scale and bulk, as described in earlier paragraphs, would not make a positive contribution to its sensitive surroundings and would not have a positive effect on the conservation area. Whilst the proposed outbuilding would be set back from the dwelling, and currently partially screened by vegetation, it would still be highly visible within the conservation area. The increased scale, bulk, height, and massing along with the amount of high-level glazing proposed is considered to cause harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and its open setting, and the landscape character and tranquillity of the National Park which is not outweighed by public benefit, contrary to Policies HE5 and HE6 of the NPPF, SP7, SP15, SP16 and DP13 of the Local Plan.

Impact on Neighbour Amenity

8.27 Although set back from the rear of the dwelling, the proposed outbuilding would be visible from the public footpath and at a greater height than the existing buildings. However, in relation to potential impacts on neighbour amenity, the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable adverse impacts on amenity in terms of additional impacts, visual intrusion, overlooking or shading.

Flood Risk

8.28 The application site is located within Environment Agency Flood Zone 3 (high probability of flooding). The proposed development comprises minor development in Flood Zone 3. Whilst the applicant has indicated in the Sustainability Statement that the footprint would remain unchanged and in the Design, Access and Heritage Statement that the first floor study would be above flood levels, a Flood Risk Assessment has not been provided and details of finished floor levels, flood resistance and flood resilience have not been provided, contrary to Policy DP12 of the Local Plan and Policies F4 and F7 of the NPPF.

Natural Environment

8.29 In relation to potential impacts on trees, trees on and adjacent to the property are protected by the Keyhaven Conservation Area. There is no objection from the Authority's Tree Officer.

8.30 It is recognised that biodiversity net gain is now required under the statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This seeks to ensure development proposals deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. In this instance, it has been established that the proposal would be exempt from mandatory BNG under Regulation 5 of the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024 as it comprises a householder application within the meaning of article 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

8.31 A brief construction environmental management statement has been submitted and adverse impacts on the adjacent Ramsar, SAC, SPA and SSSI designations are not anticipated.

Other

8.32 Pre-application engagement with the Authority was not undertaken. During the course of the application, due to inaccuracies in the measurements on the plans, amended plans were sought and have been received. However, scaling of the elevations and floorplans is correct at a plan size of A2 rather than A3 as noted on the plan.

Conclusion

8.33 Whilst the proposal would meet criteria b), c), d) and e) of Policy DP37, for the reasons set out above, the proposed development would not comply with Policy DP37 a) of the Local Plan or Policy S5 1. c. of the NPPF. In addition, the proposed outbuilding would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and would not be an appropriate design in its sensitive landscape context. Refusal of the application is therefore recommended.

9. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s) for refusal:

1. The proposed replacement outbuilding by reason of its design, size, scale and massing would not be in keeping with or subservient to the main dwelling and would fail to be appropriate or sympathetic to the conservation area and coastal landscape setting within the National Park. The design has not been informed by the historic and architectural character of the conservation area and would cause harm to the heritage asset, which has not been outweighed by public benefit. The proposed development would be contrary to Policies DP2, DP13, DP18, DP37, SP7, SP15 and SP16 of the New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 (August 2019), the Design Guide SPD (2022) and sections 4, 14, 19 and 20 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026). Furthermore, the proposed development would not seek to further the purposes of the National Park, contrary to the requirement of Section 245 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, which amended Section 11A of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

2. The proposed development is located in Environment Agency Flood Zone 3. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would be appropriately flood resistant and resilient and would not increase flood risk elsewhere, contrary to Policy DP12 of the New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 (August 2019) and Section 18 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026).

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Called in by New Forest District Councillor

2. POLICIES

Development Plan Designations

Conservation Area

Principal Development Plan Policies

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

Supplementary Planning Documents

Design Guide SPD

NPPF

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

3. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

4. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

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

Comment:

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

5. CONSULTEES

Building Design and Conservation Officer: Unable to support

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

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

6. REPRESENTATIONS

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

1. Enhancing the Conservation Area

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

2. Proportionate Design and Scale

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

3. Neighbour Amenity

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

Five letters of objections on the following grounds:

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

7. RELEVANT HISTORY

• Erection of a garage (replacement) (NFDC/83/23847) granted on 21 April 1983
• Alterations and additions to existing dwelling (NFR/XX/06533) granted on 22 May 1958

8. ASSESSMENT

Application Site

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

Proposed Development

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

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

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

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

Policy Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

a. Have a substantial adverse impact in relation to:

…

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

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

8.10 Policy L2 of the NPPF states:

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

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

8.20 The key considerations in this case are:

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

Principle of Development

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

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

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

Design and Impact on Character of Area, including Heritage Assets

8.24 Policy DP2 of the Local Plan (General development principles) seeks to ensure development proposals are appropriate and sympathetic in terms of scale, appearance, form, siting and layout, respecting the natural, built and historic environment. Chapter 4 of the Authority's Design Guide (2022) provides further guidance on appropriate design. Paragraph 4.12 sets out that extensions should ensure the character of the original building is preserved. An extension should be in scale with the existing dwelling and always be subservient in size and height. Its form, elevation treatment and detailing should complement the original dwelling. Side extensions should not normally exceed half the width of the main house, as they are likely to appear elongated and contrived, and out of proportion to the original dwelling. Where wrap around extensions are proposed, it is possible to lose the identity of the dwelling. This is particularly important where extension(s) to locally listed building are concerned especially where they have already been the subject of incremental extension over time. Paragraph 4.13 states that the character of Heritage Assets including conservation areas and locally listed buildings (NDHA’s) should be protected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact on Neighbour Amenity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natural Environment

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

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

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

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

8.44 It is recognised that biodiversity net gain is now required under the statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This seeks to ensure development proposals deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. In this instance, it has been established that the proposal would be exempt from mandatory BNG under Regulation 5 of the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024 as it comprises a householder application within the meaning of article 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

Flooding and Drainage

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

Other

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

9. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s) for refusal:

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

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

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