Report Item 4 – 18/00320/FULL – Old Farm, Cowpitts Lane, Poulner, Ringwood BH24 3JX

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view

2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

• Flood Zone
• Listed Building
• Conservation Area

3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

• DP1 General Development Principles
• DP11 Extensions to Dwellings
• DP12 Outbuildings
• CP8 Local Distinctiveness
• CP2 The Natural Environment
• DP6 Design Principles
• DP4 Flooding and the Coast
• CP7 The Built Environment

4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE

Design Guide SPD

5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

• Sec 7 - Requiring good design
• Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
• Sec 12 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

6. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ringwood Town Council: Recommend permission:

• Proposal should be considered as an exception to the 30% rule.
• Policy DP11 permits an exception to meet design consideration relating to the special character of the building.
• Because the additional floorspace relates to the carport it is considered that a legal agreement could be entered into to retain it for this use in perpetuity.

8. CONSULTEES

• 8.1 Ecologist: No comment.
• 8.2 Building Design & Conservation Area Officer: Objection.
• 8.3 Tree Officer: No objections subject to conditions.

9. REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 Two letters of objection received:

• Submitted Design and Access Statement does not address policy issues.
• Outbuildings and mezzanines should be included within floorspace.
• Permitted development rights for listed buildings do not exist.
• The extensions would not be in keeping with the farmhouse.
• Harmful impact upon views from The Old Coach House.
• Proposal would not be in keeping with neighbouring properties.

10. RELEVANT HISTORY

• 10.1 Two storey extension; link to outbuilding to create single storey extension; rear dormer window; roof alterations to existing garage; access alterations; demolition of existing single storey extension (Application for Listed Building Consent) (18/00321) Pending Decision
• 10.2 Repairs to single storey extension and chimney (Application for listed building consent) (14/00930) approved on 10 January 2015
• 10.3 Alterations to conservatory (98/64578) approved on 16 September 1998

11. ASSESSMENT

11.1 This application relates to a prominent, Grade II Listed farmhouse originating from the late eighteenth century which comprises facing brick work with a plain tiled roof. The building comprises two storeys along with some more recent additions. A detached garage and row of stables lie along the east boundary and the garden backs onto a paddock which is currently in use as a certified caravan site. The site lies just within the Western Escarpment Conservation Area (Character Area J) which is at the southern edge of the escarpment. A small cul-de-sac of modern detached properties lie to the south across Cowpitts Lane (part of a network of small rural lanes), although these fall just outside the Conservation Area designation. The property is a very prominent feature when viewed from the Gorley Road which lies to the west.

Proposal

11.2 Consent is sought to add a two storey extension with glazed link to the rear of the property and to link an existing outbuilding to the house with a single storey extension. Three rear pitched roof dormers window are proposed (replacing an existing flat roofed dormer) on the existing house along with roof alterations to the existing garage. The plans also include proposals for access alterations to the east comprising a brick wall and new gate off the track. An existing single storey side extension would be demolished. The main roof of the proposed two storey element would be zinc, with solar panels on the inner (south) elevation. Larch cladding is proposed across the outbuilding and open covered areas and the new roof over the existing outbuilding would incorporate plain tiles to match the existing house. New window openings would be aluminium.

11.3 The main issues under consideration would be:

• The extent of floorspace increase based upon the house as it stood in 1982.
• The impact the development would have upon the historic fabric and character of the listed building along with the wider Conservation Area.
• Any potential loss of amenity to neighbouring residents.

Floorspace

11.4 The existing property has only been subject to a modest amount of extension since 1982. Whilst an earlier addition (which is not of any notable historic interest would be removed the proposal would result in a gross internal floorspace of 335m² (a total resulting increase of 85%). This issue was raised with the agent at the pre-application stage when the Authority advised that the overall floorspace of the property should not be increased beyond 239m². It was also made clear at this stage that all attached outbuildings would be included within this calculation. In acknowledging the significant exceedance of the 30% limit the submitted Design and Access Statement states as follows:

• The carport and void above the dining room space have not been included in the agent's calculations because pre-application discussions with the design officer led them to locate the extension close to the outbuildings.
• Permitted development rights do not exist for listed buildings; therefore any further internal works would require formal consent.
• The applicant would be willing to accept a legal agreement preventing any further internal alterations to form additional habitable accommodation.

11.5 The arguments put forward by the agent with regards to floorspace are not considered to give the Authority sufficient reason to permit an extension which would significantly exceed the 30% limit because the agent was specifically advised at the pre-application stage to ensure the 30% limit was met and because the Building Design and Conservation Team raise specific concerns relating to the size and scale of the addition and suggested that a single storey addition would be preferred (enabling both design and floorspace issues to be overcome). The agent was also specifically advised that linking the outbuilding to the house would be unacceptable in terms of both design and character and also floorspace implications. Whilst future internal alterations would require listed building consent these would only be assessed in terms of implications for historic fabric, rather than any floorspace considerations. In any event the significant roof space would, regardless of use, appear as a full two storey addition in terms of scale, bulk and natural light and future restrictions on internal use would therefore be of limited benefit.

11.6 The Authority is carrying forward the floorspace limits set out under Policy DP11 in the emerging Local Plan. The emerging local plan recognises that for some time, proposals to incrementally extend dwellings in a nationally designated landscape can affect the locally distinctive character of the built environment of the New Forest. In addition, extensions can over time cause an imbalance in the range and mix of housing stock available. For these reasons it is considered important that the emerging Local Plan continues to include a clear policy to guide decisions for extensions to dwellings. Successive development plans for the New Forest have included such policies which strike an appropriate balance between meeting changes in householder requirements and maintaining a stock of smaller sized dwellings. The proposal at Old Farm would clearly conflict with Policy DP1 and the objectives of the emerging Local Plan for the reasons set out above.

Character, Setting and Historic Significance

11.7 The Conservation Area Character Appraisal recognises that each of the historic buildings in this character area enhance the locality and represent good vernacular detailing, reflecting part of the cultural heritage of the area. The appraisal also notes the prevalence of plain clay roof tiles in the locality and the later increase in use of natural slate. One of the key issues affecting the Conservation Area identified within the document includes the new outbuildings which can have a significant cumulative impact. It also recognises that development on the edge of the Conservation Area can have a detrimental impact from outside the designated area. In addition to this Conservation background, pages 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document set out the need to ensure extensions would incorporate stepped down ancillary roof lines, smaller spans and widths and setting back flank walls to help conceal depth.

11.8 Whilst the existing building has been subject to a limited amount of extension and alteration, these earlier alterations are low key, subservient and do not compete with the scale and form of the main house, or impact significantly upon its frontage. The proposed extensions would, in contrast add significantly to the scale and bulk of the main house, and therefore would create less than substantial harm to the special interest of the listed building. The impact of development on a listed building has to be considered in terms of the harm caused, and even if it is deemed to be less than substantial harm, it is still harm which should be avoided. The additions would also fail to adhere to the design guidance referred to above because the width of the extension would equal that of the main house and because the extension would project beyond its flank wall, impacting significantly upon the building frontage. The proposed glazed link would not appear sufficiently light weight to reduce its impact and would relate awkwardly to the main house. Having regard to the prevalence of slate and plain clay tiles in the locality the proposed facing materials would fail to compliment the Listed Building (an issue raised by the Building Design and Conservation Officer).

11.9 The Building Design and Conservation Officer also raises concern that the overly large gable width and roof span would fail to reflect the traditional proportions of the main house. The combined impact of the significant height increase to the garage roof and the proposed rear extension would dominate the original building. The proposals would also clearly conflict with earlier pre-application advice which suggested a single storey addition and advised against attached outbuildings (a feature more typical of suburban developments). The overall impact of the development would be exacerbbated further by the alterations proposed to the original boundary walls and frontage to the listed building, particularly with regards to the widening of the driveway. The Building Design and Conservation Officer raises concern that the discrete and narrow character of the current walling, drive access, garden space and relationship with the neighbouring property would all be lost, adding further to the harm to the historic interest and setting of the farmhouse. In addition to this the additional open parking area would have a suburbanising impact on the conservation area. The applicant fails to acknowledge that the site lies within the designated Conservation Area and the submitted Design and Access Statement has therefore not fully assessed the impact of the development upon the character of the area.

Other considerations

11.10 Notwithstanding the concerns raised by neighbouring residents the proposal is not considered to have any direct implications in terms of loss of light, overlooking or visual intrusion. The proposal would also not impact upon any important or prominent trees. However the absence of any direct implications for wider amenity would not outweigh the policy considerations referenced above.

Conclusion

11.11 An appeal decision (reference APP/B9506/D/15/3004446) which demonstrates the importance of ensuring extensions to dwellings fall within acceptable limits relates to a large property at Bucklers Hard. This property had undergone previous extensions and the appeal proposal would have then exceeded the 30% limit by 2% (significantly less than the current proposal). Despite the modest size of the proposal the Inspector dismissed the appeal concluding that it was an immediate conflict with Policy DP11. In contrast to the proposals at Old Farm the Inspector noted that the addition would bring about an overall improvement to the appearance of the building but stated that if this were accepted as an argument then this approach could be repeated on many other sites. The Inspector concluded that the policy should be applied both "rigidly and consistently". The fact that the current proposal would exceed the 30% limit by 85% only serves to highlight the excessive size and scale of the proposal which would clearly be at odds with the form and scale of the main house (and also the policy objectives of DP11). In light of this and the significant identified harm to the historic fabric of the listed building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, it is recommended that the application should be refused.

12. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1. In order to help safeguard the long term future of the countryside, the Local Planning Authority considers it important to resist the cumulative effect of significant enlargements being made to rural dwellings. Consequently Policy DP11 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010) seeks to limit the proportional increase in the size of such dwellings in the New Forest National Park recognising the benefits this would have in minimising the impact of buildings and activity generally in the countryside and the ability to maintain a balance in the housing stock. This proposal, taking into account a previous enlargement, would result in a building which is unacceptably large in relation to the original dwelling and would undesirably add to pressures for change which are damaging to the future of the countryside.
2. The proposed extensions and alterations would, by virtue of their scale, form and materials, create less than substantial harm to the special interest of the Listed Building and fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Western Escarpment Conservation Area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies DP1, DP11, CP7 and CP8 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (December 2010) along with the requirements of the Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document.

Site location plan