Report Item 2 – 25/01466FULL – Hinchelsea House, track in Hincelsea, Brockenhurst SO42 7UP

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view

2. POLICIES

Development Plan Designations

Principal Development Plan Policies

• DP2 General development principles
• DP18 Design principles
• DP37 Outbuildings
• SP6 The natural environment
• SP15 Tranquillity
• SP16 The historic and built environment
• SP17 Local distinctiveness

Supplementary Planning Documents

Design Guide SPD

NPPF

• 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 for the reasons listed below:

Committee members were content with the amended plans, particularly the reduced size of the balcony.

5. CONSULTEES

Ecologist: Comment

Based on the site-specific circumstances and data, it would be possible to conclude that the conservation status of the populations concerned in respect of bat roosting requirements would be capable of being licenced. Notes recommendations in the Ecological Assessment about the impact of light spillage on Barbastelle, Myotis and Brown Long-Eared bats.

Building Design and Conservation: Unable to support (summarised).

The former coach house/stable building is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset that positively contributes to the cultural heritage of the National Park, with the former carriage house/store building contributing to the group value of the site.

There are still concerns over the introduction of a large balcony to the rear of the building which creates a visually prominent domestic feature that competes with the simple, utilitarian character and form of the former coach house/stable. It is recommended that this is reduced in size.

As noted in our comments on the previous application, the change in roof design interrupts the linear architectural form of the historic roofscape and introduces an incongruous gable end roof form that does not sit comfortably to the rear elevation. Although it has been reduced in size, the addition of this roofing element is at odds with the simple linear profile characteristic of an 18th century coach house.

The number of windows and doors proposed increases the glazing to solid wall ratio, which is normally illustrative of a modern residential dwelling as noted on page 4.11 of the New Forest National Park Design Guide, and subsequently overly domesticates the rear elevation.

Taken as a whole, the proposed alterations would impact the historic character and appearance of the heritage asset with incongruous domestic features. The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the non-designated heritage asset and therefore cause harm to the cultural heritage of the National Park.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

None received.

7. RELEVANT HISTORY

• First floor extension to include balcony and external staircase; alterations to doors and windows (AMENDED DESCRIPTION AND PLANS) (24/00414FULL) refused on 18 November 2025.
• Door & window alterations at the carriages house and conversion to staff room (07/92229) granted on 11 December 2007.
• Entrance gates and fencing with lantern lights; fencing (07/91951) granted on 28 September 2007.
• Extensions and alterations to outbuildings to form car port, garage and office/wc (07/91878) granted on 14 September 2007.
• Walled garden (07/91766) granted on 14 Augus 2007.
• Replacement dwelling (07/91193) granted on 02 April 2007.
• House; demolition of existing (06/90211) refused on 03 November 2006.
• Detached house (06/86899) refused on 16 March 2006. Subsequent appeal dismissed on 03 August 2006.
• Erect staff house with triple garage & enclosed swimming pool (NFDC/94/54472) refused on 05 July 1994. Subsequent appeal dismissed on 12 January 1995.
• Erect house & triple garage & staff accommodation in stables (NFDC/88/40190) withdrawn on 13 January 1992.
• Erection of a house (NFDC/91/46780) granted on 13 January 1992.
• Four applications granted between 1982 and 1988 (and listed below) for a dwelling and (separate) staff accommodation (references 22412, 27558, 30305, 36314) were revoked by a Revocation Order on 24 October 1991.
• Erection of a house and quadruple garage and erect staff house (NFDC/87/36314) granted on 26 March 1988.
• Erection of a house and separate staff accommodation (NFDC/85/30305) granted on 22 November 1985.
• Erection of a house and staff accommodation (siting) (NFDC/84/27558) granted on 12 October 1984.
• Conversion of coach house to residential and erection of a house and garage (NFDC/83/25283) refused on 03 May 1984.
• Addition of a conservatory and erection of a swimming pool enclosure (existing glass house to be demolished). (NFDC/83/24236) granted on 17 June 1983.
• Erection of a house and separate staff accommodation (NFDC/82/22412) granted on 10 December 1982.
• Demolition of fire destroyed house and replacement with new house and new separate staff accommodation (NFDC/79/12862) granted on 23 November 1979.
• Alterations and addition of a sitting room and attached garage block with two bedrooms and a bathroom over (existing glasshouses and outbuildings on site to be demolished) (NFDC/78/11809) granted on 06 December 1978.

8. ASSESSMENT

Application Site

8.1 Hincheslea House site comprises a large site near to the Open Forest, accessed from the south side of Burley Road by a long drive across parkland landscape. A large two storey dwelling of Georgian ‘country house’ character stood on the site until it was demolished in1978 following a fire. It was replaced by a smaller 'log cabin' style dwelling, which was also extensively fire damaged, in the early 1990s. A replacement dwelling received planning permission in 2007, which was constructed shortly afterwards and is the house which exists today.

8.2 Old brick outbuildings associated with the former country house have remained on site, situated within the curtilage to the south of the dwelling. The application the subject of this application comprised the former Coach House/ Stables. This building was conditioned to only be used for purposes ancillary to the dwelling on the site under planning permission reference 07/91878.

8.3 As set out in the comments of the Building Design and Conservation Officer, the building is considered to comprise a non-designated heritage asset contributing to the group value of the site. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF (2024) states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm and the significance of the heritage asset.

8.4 The site borders SAC, SPA, Ramsar and SSSI designations on the south boundary.

Proposed Development

8.5 This application seeks consent for works to the former Coach House/ Stables building, which is situated on the east side of the group of outbuildings. The building has a broadly symmetrical form, with a single storey "outshot" element situated centrally on the east elevation and single storey elements at either end.

8.6 The proposed works would consist of:

• A central window above that of the arched doors to the on the front elevation.
• To the rear ground floor outshot, it is proposed to add a balcony at first floor level. To facilitate this a brick parapet, 1.14m above that of the existing wall height, is proposed with a balcony extending out from this, 3m from the rear wall of the existing ground floor element.
• A glass balustrade on the balcony.
• A new door is proposed in the location of the existing centralised first floor window, roof alterations are proposed forming a gable to allow for glazed French doors to provide access to the outdoor space.
• To the ground floor below the proposed balcony within the existing rear wall of the central outshot, it is proposed to remove the two central windows and replace with two sets of full height doors.
• The proposal seeks to change the existing store into a gym and in doing so, the rear ground floor window changes to form a door, with two windows, matching that of the existing, to be added either side of this door on this rear elevation. The floor plans also indicate a new door on the front ground floor elevation.

Consideration

8.7 This application has been submitted following the refusal of planning application reference: 24/00414FULL on 18 November 2025. The key considerations in this case relate to the proposed design and impact on heritage assets and the impact on ecology.

8.8 Section 15, paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and National Landscapes which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The scale and extent of development within all these designated areas should be limited, while development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas. It is the statutory duty of all English National Parks 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).

8.9 Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places), paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. In addition, paragraph 139 of the NPPF sets out that development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design, taking into account any local design guidance and supplementary planning documents such as design guides and codes.

8.10 In respect of the impact on heritage assets, the building, also noted as a Coach House, has to date been sympathetically altered and is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset worthy of inclusion in the National Park's Local List and forms part of the National Park's cultural heritage. As set out in the comments from the Building Design and Conservation Team, this is due to factors relating to age, representivity, architectural value, group value and historic value.

8.11 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF sets out that heritage assets including sites and buildings of local historic are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. Policy SP16 of the Local Plan provides stronger heritage protection than the NPPF, requiring that development within the National Park should conserve and enhance the significance or special interest of designated or non-designated heritage assets. 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. 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.

8.12 The Authority's Building Design and Conservation Team have been consulted and are unable to support the revised proposals. Whilst the balcony has been reduced in size by circa 2m from the refused scheme, the proposal would still introduce a large balcony to the rear of the building which would create a visually prominent domestic feature that competes with the simple, utilitarian character and form of the former coach house/stable. The total outdoor area created via this proposal would be 27.5 square metres; the area would have a depth of 5m and width of 5.7m. The balcony is considered to erode the historic character and appearance of the building.

8.13 In addition, the change in roof design would interrupt the linear architectural form of the historic roofscape and would introduces an incongruous gable end roof form that would not sit comfortably to the rear elevation. Although it has been reduced in size from the previous proposal, the addition of this roofing element is considered at odds with the simple linear profile characteristic of an 18th century coach house. Concerns have also been raised by the Building Design and Conservation Team in relation to the impact of the proposed fenestration on the historic character and appearance of the building.

8.14 Overall, the proposed development is considered to cause less than substantial harm to the historic and architectural significance of the non-designated heritage asset through the impact of the alterations on the historic character and appearance of the heritage asset. No public benefits have been put forward to offset this harm. The proposals therefore conflict with Policy SP16 of the adopted Local Plan.

8.15 In relation to design considerations, Policy DP2 (General Development Principles) promotes high quality design and construction which enhances local character and distinctiveness. As set out above, the proposed balcony and roof alterations are not considered appropriate or sympathetic in terms of scale and appearance in the context of the existing building. The inclusion of a large, 27.5 square metre balcony is considered excessive and disproportionate, with inappropriate massing. The proposal would fundamentally alter the design of the existing heritage asset through the introduction of incongruous domestic features and would not enhance the built and historic environment, nor be contextually appropriate. It is therefore considered that Policies DP2 and DP18 are not adhered to.

8.16 An ecological survey has been undertaken identifying the presence of bat roosts within the building and that a European Protected Species licence will be required for any works within the building, noted as the Stables within the Ecological Assessment, due to the temporary impact/loss of roost and potential direct impacts to a long-eared roost. 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 (the development is the appropriate means of meeting the homeowners' requirements). In this instance, as highlighted above, the proposal is not compliant with Policies DP2, DP18 and SP16 and thus does not meet these tests.

8.17 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.

8.18 The level of glazing has been referenced in paragraph 4.16 of the Ecological Assessment: "The presence of Barbastelle, Myotis and Brown Long-Eared, all recorded in the south of the site means light spillage on the surrounding woodland needs to be considered. The new windows proposed in the changes to the old stables will need specialist glazing to reduce excess light spillage." The Authority's Ecologist has commented that the application remains silent on this matter and the ecology report provides no quantitative assessment. Given that there are rare bat species present in the surrounding area, and potential for additional fenestration as a result of the proposal, with consequent impact, precaution is suggested.

Conclusion

8.19 The amendments since the previous refusal have not overcome the objection from the Building Design and Conservation Team. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, siting and design would not be in keeping with or appropriate to the existing building. The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset. It has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the harm has been outweighed by public benefit. The proposal would be contrary to the requirements of Policies DP2, DP18 and SP16 of the adopted Local Plan, the Design Guide SPD and the NPPF.

9. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s) for refusal:

1. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, siting and design would not be in keeping with or appropriate to the existing building and its setting. The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of a non-designated heritage asset and it would fail to be appropriate or sympathetic to its setting within a historic parkland. It has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the harm has been outweighed by public benefit. The proposal would be contrary to the requirements of Policies DP2, DP18, and SP16 of the New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 (August 2019), sections 12, 15 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Design Guide SPD. 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.

© Crown copyright and database rights 2026 Ordnance Survey 100014703