planning development control committee - 19 june 2012 ... · 8.1 conservation officer: recommend...

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 June 2012 Report Item 9 Application No: 12/97389/FULL Full Application Site: 2 Bank Cottages, Pinkney Lane, Bank, SO43 7FD

Proposal: Outbuilding

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Whitehorn

Case Officer: Liz Young

Parish: LYNDHURST

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view.

2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Conservation Area: Forest North East

3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DP1 General Development Principles CP2 The Natural Environment DP12 Outbuildings CP8 Local Distinctiveness

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

Lyndhurst Parish Council: Recommend permission; No impact upon neighbouring properties; Would be clear of trees; The design would be sympathetic with the rural character of the area;

54

It is noted that the car port has now been removed from the application.

8. CONSULTEES

8.1 Conservation Officer: Recommend Refusal: the proposed outbuilding, by virtue of its size, scale and location, would neither preserve or enhance the character of the Bank Conservation Area nor enhance the setting of this building of local interest.

8.2 Tree Officer: No objections subject to tree protection and / or

working method statement. 8.3 Drainage (NFDC): No objection subject to an informative. 9. REPRESENTATIONS 9.1 None received. 10. RELEVANT HISTORY:

10.1 Two storey extension; relocate porch; single storey rear

extension; conservatory (96167) approved on 18 April 2011.

10.2 Two storey extension; relocated porch; single storey rear extension; conservatory (approved on 6 December 2010).

11. ASSESSMENT

11.1 2 Bank Cottages is a modest, semi-detached dwelling located

within rural residential surroundings within the Bank Conservation Area. This pair of cottages are recognised within the Conservation Area Character Appraisal as being of significant vernacular interest. The property lies within a spacious and mature plot and is set well back from its front boundary with the highway. Permission (reference 96167) has recently been granted to extend the property.

11.2 Consent is now sought for a detached outbuilding to be located to the front of the house. The building would (based upon amended plans received on 25 April 2012) have an external footprint of 100 square metres and would have a ridge height of 5 metres. External facing materials would comprise clay roof tiles, timber cladding to the front and rear elevations and facing brickwork on each end. The building would accommodate a workshop, office and two garage bays. The amendment submitted shows the removal of a car port which the applicant states is no longer required.

11.3 The main issues under consideration would be: The extent to which the proposed outbuilding could be

regarded as incidental and appropriate to the dwelling and

55

also its impact upon the wider conservation area. Potential loss of amenity to neighbouring residential

properties.

11.4 Notwithstanding the modest reduction in footprint of the proposed building, it is considered that its size and position would not enable it to be appropriate or incidental to the dwelling; it would not relate closely to the dwelling and would be positioned 17 metres in front of the property. Furthermore it should be noted that the floorspace of the proposed building would exceed that of a small dwelling. This would significantly increase the spread of built development across the plot and the prominent siting would exacerbate the visual impact of the proposal to the detriment of the wider conservation area. Furthermore the length of the proposed building (which would be fully visible from the highway due to the orientation of the building) would be comparable with that of the dwelling and its extensive footprint would not enable it to be a subservient feature within the plot.

11.5 The Design Guide (Supplementary Planning Document) sets out a number of key principles relating to the design and siting of outbuildings. These include the need to ensure modestly proportioned dwellings (such as 2 Bank Cottages) have low key outbuildings and also recognises that outbuildings which diminish in scale to respond to different uses is an effective means of minimising bulk. This proposal would be relatively monolithic in its appearance and all three of the proposed uses would be contained within one element of building rather than within distinct, subservient elements. Furthermore the Guide stresses the importance of ensuring garaging is low key and relating buildings closely to one another around yards ensures a more rural composition (in contrast to the current scheme in which the proposed outbuilding would be relatively remote from the dwelling). The proposal would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Policies DP12 and CP8 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy.

11.6 Aside from the concerns relating to size and siting it is considered that the proposed development would not lead to a direct loss of amenity to neighbouring residents through loss of light, overlooking or visual intrusion. Whilst the proposal would be visible from neighbouring properties it would be sufficiently remote from boundaries so as to avoid a directly harmful impact.

11.7 In conclusion it is considered that the overall size, scale and prominent siting of the building would not enable it to be appropriate or incidental to the dwelling. It's impact upon the wider conservation area would be exacerbated further by the fact that it would not relate closely to the dwelling and would therefore be contrary to the requirements of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy, the National Planning Policy Framework and the Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document.

56

12. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse Reason(s)

1. The proposed outbuilding, by virtue of its size, scale and siting would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and would not be incidental or appropriate to the dwelling and its domestic curtilage. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the requirements of the Design Guide SPG and Policies DP12 and CP8 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy.

Informative(s): 1. Please be aware that this decision relates to amended plans received on 26 April 2012.

57

New Forest National Park AuthorityLymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington, SO41 9ZG

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Date: 31/05/2012

SCALE: 1:5000

Ref: 12/97389/FULL

© Crown Copyright and Database Right 2012 Ordnance Survey 1000114703

00m82

42

84 86 88

00m90

42

428200m

84 86 88

429000m

00m6810

70

72

74

00m7610

106800m

70

72

74

107600m

58

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 June 2012 Report Item

10 Application No: 12/97410/FULL Full Application Site: Green Ash, Lower Sandy Down Lane, Boldre, Lymington, SO41 8PR

Proposal: One and two storey extension to dwelling; covered balcony; partial

demolition of existing dwelling; access alteration; creation of pond Applicant: Mr & Mrs Dodwell

Case Officer: Deborah Slade

Parish: BOLDRE


Contrary to Parish Council view.


No specific designation


DP1 General Development Principles DP6 Design Principles CP7 The Built Environment CP8 Local Distinctiveness DP11 Extensions to Dwellings CP2 The Natural Environment


Design Guide SPD



6. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received


Boldre Parish Council: Refusal is recommended:

59

Green Ash is classified as a Heritage Asset. The Parish Council considers that the building should be retained in its entirety i.e. the building as it exists today.

The proposed extension is, by the architect's dimensions, more than twice the size of the intended retained dwelling and cannot therefore be deemed subservient to it, which is contrary to DP11.

This application is also contrary to CP7 & CP8 especially considering its heritage asset status and exceptionally rural location.

8. CONSULTEES

8.1 Design Officer: On balance no objection is raised, subject to

conditions. 8.2 Ecologist: No objection subject to securing delivery of the

measures outlined in the ecological report. 8.3 Archaeologist: No objection subject to conditions. 8.4 Tree Officer: No objection subject to conditions. 8.5 Landscape Officer: Concern is raised over the impact on the

landscape character of the site and wider area; any consent should be subject to detailed landscaping condition.

8.6 Drainage (NFDC): No objection subject to conditions. 8.7 Highway Authority (HCC): No objection subject to conditions. 9. REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 Four letters of support/ No objection received:

the proposal is considered sensitive to the historic character

and function of the property the thatched section will be enhanced by the removal of the

Victorian addition, and by the lower ridge heights of the extension

Retaining the outbuildings will minimise the impact of the increase in footprint

The proposal will be sympathetic with the existing building with appropriate siting and design, it will be non-intrusive within its environment

9.2 Fourteen letters of objection received, including one from the New

Forest History & Archaeology Group: Green Ash is a Heritage Asset; therefore harm or loss should

require clear and convincing justification The Victorian extension should therefore not be lost The proposal is insincere in replicating the style and character

of the building

60

The size of the extension would dwarf the site, would be inappropriately fenestrated and would be totally out of place in this historic small holding landscape

The proposal would be contrary to National Park purposes in that it would not conserve or enhance the natural beauty or cultural heritage of the Park

The proposal would not protect, maintain or enhance this local vernacular building. The main house is in good condition despite its age

The proposal would result in the virtual demolition of the cottage whereas the accompanying structural survey says the cottage is capable or renovation

Any extensions should reflect the building's existing character, which this does not, and should retain as many original features as possible

Any proposed extension should be subservient to the original building thus preserving its integrity. This proposal looks more like a new dwelling than an appropriate extension. The extension would be larger than the core element of the dwelling.

Highways issues should be taken into account The proposal would conflict with the policies on heritage which

are set out in the Core Strategy & the National Planning Policy Framework

The proposal still does not overcome the reasons for refusal of the previous application

The deliberately neglected state of the cottage should not be given weight when the decision is made.

The excessive fenestration proposed would cause light pollution and glare/ reflection

The pond should be in an alternative location. 10. RELEVANT HISTORY:

10.1 One and two store extension to dwelling; covered balcony; partial

demolition of existing dwelling; access alteration; creation of pond (96835) withdrawn on 22 December 2011.

10.2 Extension to outbuilding (95765) approved on 18 January 2011.

10.3 Replacement dwelling (demolition of existing house) (95792) refused on 21 December 2010.

10.4 Replacement dwelling (demolition of existing house) (95793) refused on 21 December 2010.

10.5 Extension to outbuilding (95425) - withdrawn on 02 September 2010.

10.6 Two storey replacement dwelling (demolition of existing house) (95350) - refused on 09 August 2010 and dismissed on appeal on

61

17 January 2011.

10.7 Erection of garage for use as agricultural implement store (18529) approved on 4 February 1981.

11. ASSESSMENT

11.1 Lower Sandy Down is a rural lane within the open countryside of the National Park, to the north of Lymington. It is characterised by the hedge-lined lane, the slope of the topography from the north to the south, and the small fields and patches of woodland either side. There is a linear hamlet of development along the edges of the lane, and towards the west end lies Green Ash, a small holding and associated thatched cottage. To the immediate south of the site lies a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

11.2 Green Ash is a detached dwelling house, two storeys in height. The main part of the dwelling is thatched, and there is a slated Victorian side extension, as well as lean-to extensions at single storey to the rear. The house lies within a smallholding, with a garden to the rear, and a series of outbuildings at the front and side. The site - in particular to the south of the dwelling - slopes downwards to a stream. The building is not of Listable quality, however it and its associated outbuildings are considered to comprise a Heritage Asset within the meaning of the National Planning Policy framework, and the dwelling is of local vernacular importance.

11.3 The house and associated outbuildings exhibit a somewhat complex building history. Whilst the house exhibits many characteristics of a New Forest cottage, in respect of the local vernacular style of architecture, there are some architectural features that suggest it is of somewhat higher quality. The main house has been substantially altered and because the gables rise above current roof height, this potentially suggests that the building was always thatched.

11.4 This proposal is to retain the original core cottage building and

demolish its Victorian extension, as well as removing the canopy-like conservatories. A new link element would attach to a side extension in the form of an attached barn-like structure. The intention is to retain and preserve the original cottage whilst providing some additional usable floorspace. The proposal would result in a 30% floorspace increase over that present in 1982.

11.5 The application is accompanied by a professional structural survey which demonstrates that the cottage is capable of renovation, albeit at cost, and the extent of the original walls to be retained is shown on the proposed floorplans. The proposal would result in the retention of most of the original fabric of the

62

cottage.

11.6 The proposal to modify the gable that rises above the thatch would allow a traditional detail to be re-instated. The archaeological evidence is quite clear that the gable has been raised and has resulted in an unusual introduction of a non-Hampshire/ New Forest Characteristic. Taking the thatch over the gable end will remove the problem of sealing the thatch against the upstanding internal face of the gable, a much preferred solution for the longevity of the structure and its maintenance. The main cottage would be roofed in combed wheat straw and would be finished with a flush ridge, typical of New Forest vernacular and appropriate to the age and character of the building.

11.7 The concept of the new side extension is considered to be of merit. The principle of new development is to retain the existing cottage in an identifiable format, avoiding obvious elements of new domestic building. This is done by promoting a barn-like structure alongside the cottage, set down in the centre of the site. The materials would be mellow and rustic and the fenestration sparse. This criteria would strengthen rural farmstead character rather than add domestic elements of building. The extension would read as part of the cluster of outbuildings around the house, which are all to be retained. The only somewhat discordant aspects of the proposed extension are the combination of one and two storey glazing at the side and rear return of the proposal, and the projecting covered veranda and supports where the simplicity of the extension is lost. However, these aspects would be on the part of the extension which faces into the back garden, and the features would not be readily visible from Lower Sandy Down. Overall these are considered to be marginal points within an otherwise appropriate approach to retaining the cottage whilst ensuring its longevity and usefulness into the future, in accordance with Policy CP7.

11.8 Policy DP11 permits extensions where they would be appropriate to the existing dwelling and its curtilage. The extension would be considered appropriate in this instance, for reasons set out above, and would occupy a curtilage position near to the cluster of existing outbuildings. The application proposes to retain and renovate the existing outbuildings as their character, position and grouping are considered to be of historic importance in relation to the site in general. The floor level of the existing cottage is retained, as is its ridge height. In order to keep the ridge height of the extension low in relation to that of the cottage, its ground floor level would be excavated, partly making use of the natural land slope in the intended location. The result is that the extension element would not appear over-dominant in the streetscene. The proposal is no longer considered to result in a "formal and imposing effect" which was problematic with the previous proposal for a replacement dwelling which was

63

dismissed on appeal (95350).

11.9

The Authority's Adopted Design Guide (SPD) requires that extensions should belong to their setting, and should promote rural character and distinctiveness. The extension is not considered to be of suburban form, and the development takes influence from local vernacular. The proposed extension is considered to be compatible with the main building through the provision of the link element and because of the lower ridge height of the barn-like extension. Materials would be appropriate and the extension would sit well within the cluster of outbuildings. The proposal is considered to accord with the principles of the Design Guide.

11.10 There would be sufficient space for parking amongst the existing curtilage structures and there is no highways objection to the proposed access arrangement. The existing historic walls & paths at the front of the site are to be retained. Any additional landscaping should be in-character with the existing appearance as a smallholding and this can be secured by planning conditions (no. 5 & 6).

11.11 A full ecological survey has been submitted with the application. It concludes that the proposal is unlikely to harm protected species provided that certain mitigation measures are implemented. These can be secured by planning condition (no. 8). The proposal involves the creation of a wildlife pond, the specification for which can be secured by planning condition (no. 8).

11.12 Given the location and nature of trees on site, the Tree Officer considers that it would be fairly straightforward to achieve and implement a suitable tree protection strategy. This can be secured by planning condition (no. 13).

11.13 There is a Site of Special Scientific Interest adjacent to the site's southern boundary, but this would not be affected by the nature of the proposed works. Other material factors of the development have been considered, such as drainage, access, potential for light pollution; none is considered to raise any issues which would be more pertinent than the main considerations outlined above.

11.14 Overall it is considered that consent should be granted subject to planning conditions.

12. RECOMMENDATION

Grant Subject to Conditions Condition(s)

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the

64

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. No development shall take place until samples or exact details of the facing and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the building in accordance with Policy DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

3. Before development commences, the following details shall be submitted to, and approved by the New Forest National Park Authority: Typical joinery details including windows, doors, eaves, verge, bargeboards (as necessary). Development shall only take place in accordance with those details which have been approved. Reason: To protect the character and architectural interest of the building in accordance with Policies DP1, DP6 and CP7 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

4. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the arrangements for parking (and turning) within its curtilage have been implemented. These areas shall be kept available for their intended purposes at all times. Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision is made in the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010)

5. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme of landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. This scheme shall include : (a) the existing trees and shrubs which have been agreed to be retained; (b) a specification for new planting (species, size, spacing and location); (c) areas for hard surfacing and the materials to be used; (d) other means of enclosure; (e) a method and programme for its implementation and the

65

means to provide for its future maintenance. No development shall take place after unless these details have been approved and then only in accordance with those details. Reason: To ensure that the development takes place in an appropriate way and to comply with Policy DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

6. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size or species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the appearance and setting of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any re-enactment of that Order) no extension (or alterations) otherwise approved by Classes A, B or C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order, garage or other outbuilding otherwise approved by Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order, or means of enclosure otherwise approved by Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be erected or carried out without express planning permission first having been granted. Reason: To ensure the dwelling remains of a size which is appropriate to its location within the countryside and to comply with Policies DP10 and DP11 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

8. The development shall only be implemented in accordance with the measures for ecological mitigation and enhancement which are set out in the ecological survey which forms part of the planning application hereby approved. Notwithstanding drawing 12, prior to the commencement of development details of the exact siting and design of the wildlife pond hereby approved, including details of spoil disposal, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall only be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

66

Reason: To safeguard protected species and biodiversity in accordance with Policies DP1 and CP2 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

9. Before development commences, details of the means of disposal of surface water from the site shall be 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 DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

10. A) No demolition/development shall take place/commence until a programme of building recording work including a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. 1. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording. 2. The programme for post investigation assessment. 3. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording. 4. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation. 5. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation. 6. Nomination of a competent person or \ persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation. B) No demolition/development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (A). Reason: The development is located in an area of archaeological/ heritage significance where the recording of archaeological remains should be carried out prior to the development taking place in accordance with Policy DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

11. No external lighting shall be installed on the site unless details of such proposals have first been submitted to and approved by the New Forest National Park Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of the area in accordance with Policies DP1 and CP6 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

67

12. The thatch for the main roof shall be combed wheat or longstraw and shall have a flush ridge finish. Reason: To protect the character and architectural interest of the building in accordance with Policies DP1, DP6 and CP7 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

13. The development hereby approved shall not take place until the arrangements to be taken for the protection of the trees and hedges on the site (to be identified by agreement with the New Forest National Park Authority beforehand) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority, and unless the details thus submitted have been implemented. Reason: To safeguard trees and natural features which are important to the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies DP1 and CP2 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

Informative(s): 1. This note relates to condition 10:

The written brief/ specification needs to be for a targeted archaeological watching brief during ground works phases of the development and also a photographic record of the buildings prior to alteration and any demolition. The watching brief and the photographic record to be made by a contractor with a proven archaeological track record. The photographic record will need to consist of internal and external photographs. Two sets of colour photographs, (digital photographs are acceptable) need to be printed on high quality glossy photographic paper. The photographs need to be numbered indexed and a plan provided showing the locations from which the images have been taken with reference numbers. The records will need to be housed in archival quality sleeves. So that the copies can be transferred to the County Record Office and the New Forest Centre Christopher Tower Library. Whilst the Copyright will need to rest with the originator, the specification to be approved, will require a Copyright clause that allows the material to be copied for research and development control/planning purposes without recourse to the originator.

68


Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Date: 31/05/2012

SCALE: 1:5000

Ref: 12/97410/FULL


00m04

43

06 08 10

00m12

43

430400m

06 08 10

431200m

00m909

92

94

96

00m989

99000m

92

94

96

99800m

69


11 Application No: 12/97448/VAR Variation / Removal of Condition Site: Martins Farm, Shepherds Road, Bartley, Southampton, SO40 2LH

Proposal: Application to remove condition 3 of planning permission 11/96932 to

allow painted brickwork without timber framework

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Buxton

Case Officer: Laura Harry

Parish: NETLEY MARSH


Contrary to Parish Council View


Listed Building Conservation Area: Forest North East


CP7 The Built Environment CP8 Local Distinctiveness DP1 General Development Principles DP6 Design Principles DP11 Extensions to Dwellings


Design Guide SPD



6. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received


Netley Marsh Parish Council: Recommend permission - The proposals are

70

preferable in terms of visual impact to the wood cladding proposed by the original permission.

8. CONSULTEES

8.1 Conservation Officer: Objection - The approved extension, clad in timber, was carefully designed to read as an outbuilding. The proposed use of painted brickwork would neither preserve nor enhance the character or setting of the listed building.

9. REPRESENTATIONS 9.1 None received 10. RELEVANT HISTORY:

10.1 Alterations and addition of a bathroom and hall and erection of a

double garage, (existing garage to be demolished) (NFDC/79/13226) granted 05 June 1979.

10.2 Single-storey side extension (93379) granted 16 October 2008.

10.3 Single-storey side extension (Application for Listed Building Consent) granted 10 October 2008.

10.4 Two storey side extension (96033) refused 19 April 2011.

10.5 Two storey extension (Application for Listed Building Consent) (96034) refused 19 April 2011.

10.6 Single-storey side extension (Application for extension of time to implement planning permission reference 08/93379) (96816) granted 16 November 2011.

10.7 Single-storey side extension (Application for Listed Building Consent) (Application for extension of time to implement Listed Building Consent reference 08/93380) (96821) granted 16 November 2011.

10.8 Application to remove condition 3 of planning permission 11/96934 to allow painted brickwork without timber framework (Listed Building Consent) (97449) pending decision.

11. ASSESSMENT

11.1 Martins Farm is a Grade II Listed building located on Shepherds Road within the village of Bartley and within the Forest North East Conservation Area. The property is set back from and built at right angles to the road. The building is a 17th century simple, linear, timber-framed lobby entrance cottage with 20th century extensions. The property has an exposed frame with painted infill brick panels, later walls of painted brick and a corrugated iron

71

outshot. The property has a half hipped thatched roof with an eyebrow dormer. There is a half-storeyed rectangular block on the north-east elevation, a later 20th century wing, with irregular fenestration. The principle elevation has a porch with a gabled thatch roof extending from the eaves with walls constructed of vertical boarding and a half glazed door. The iron clad outshot is sited at the south-west end.

11.2 Consent is sought to remove condition 3 of planning permission 11/96932 to allow painted brickwork without timber framework. Condition 3 states: "No development shall take place until samples or exact details (including the treatment, finish and colour) of the timber cladding shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority.

Reason: To preserve the special architectural character, historic interest and appearance of the listed building in accordance with Policies DP1, DP6 and CP7 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010)."

11.3 Significant care was taken over the design of the two storey side extension which was granted planning permission (96932) after a previous application (96033) for a two storey extension was refused. It was important to ensure that the extension read as a later addition and as subservient to the original farmhouse. The use of timber boarding was actually advanced as an argument in favour of the approved application where the applicants Heritage Statement confirmed the following: "The extension will be constructed of blockwork and finished with weather-boarded cladding of natural oak boards (the detailed finishes of these to be agreed with the conservation officer)... The proposed extension seeks to replicate a simple outbuilding form and reflects the Hampshire and New Forest vernacular of natural oak weatherboarding with a plan clay tile roof. In addition it will accentuate the importance and original architectural quality of the timber framed house by providing a complementary contrast to the original farmhouse... The extension will be most apparent from the public roadside but it intended to act as a typical building type and form found in a farm group such as this. It will over time become weathered so as to be subservient to the timber framing and that of the principle building...The proposed form and use of materials is designed to better respond to the courtyard character of the grouping of agricultural buildings which forms Martins Farm... and seen as an appropriate addition to this grouping."

11.4 Planning permission was granted on the basis that the extension would be subservient to the main building and would read as a converted outbuilding and this is in line with guidance contained in

72

the approved Design Guide (SPD). The proposed changes are materially different from the approved plans and the change in materials would make it difficult to read the various stages of development. The proposed use of painted brickwork would not be appropriate to the listed building in comparison with the approved plans which show a timber clad extension, which subsequently reads as an outbuilding.

11.5 The approved extension had been carefully designed to reflect a simple, uncomplicated agricultural form with traditional detailing (such as the fenestration, natural oak weatherboarding, the use of a plain clay tiled roof, exposed rafters etc.) and would complement the style of the existing cottage. The removal of condition 3 would effectively result in an extension faced in brick which would neither preserve nor enhance the character and setting of the listed building and would actually add to the existing design faults in the 20th century extension. Furthermore, the extension would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Removal of condition 3 is therefore recommended for refusal.

12. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse Reason(s)

1. The removal of condition 3 (application 11/96932) would result in an extension faced in brick as opposed to the approved extension which was designed to reflect a simple, uncomplicated agricultural form with traditional detailing such as natural oak weatherboarding which would complement the style of the existing cottage. The removal of condition 3 would result in an inappropriate and unsympathetic extension to the existing building which would neither preserve nor enhance the character, appearance or setting of the listed building or conservation area. The development would therefore be contrary to policies CP7, CP8, DP1, DP6 and DP11 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010), section 7, section 11 and section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Design Guide (SPD).

73


Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Date: 31/05/2012

SCALE: 1:5000

Ref: 12/97448/VAR


00m10

43

12 14

00m16

43

431000m

12 14

431600m

00m2011

22

24

26

00m2811

112000m

22

24

26

112800m

74


12 Application No: 12/97449/LBC Listed Building Consent Site: Martins Farm, Shepherds Road, Bartley, Southampton, SO40 2LH

Proposal: Application to remove condition 3 of planning permission 11/96934 to

allow painted brickwork without timber framework (Listed Building Consent)

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Buxton

Case Officer: Laura Harry

Parish: NETLEY MARSH


Contrary to Parish Council view


Listed Building Conservation Area: Forest North East


CP7 The Built Environment DP1 General Development Principles DP6 Design Principles


Design Guide SPD


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

6. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received


Netley Marsh Parish Council: Recommend permission - The proposals are preferable in terms of visual impact to the wood cladding proposed by the original permission.

75

8. CONSULTEES

8.1 Conservation Officer: Objection - The approved extension, clad in timber, was carefully designed to read as an outbuilding. The proposed use of painted brickwork would neither preserve nor enhance the character or setting of the listed building.

9. REPRESENTATIONS 9.1 None received. 10. RELEVANT HISTORY:

10.1 Alterations and addition of a bathroom and hall and erection of a

double garage, (existing garage to be demolished) (NFDC/79/13226) granted 05 June 1979.

10.2 Single-storey side extension (93379) granted 16 October 2008.

10.3 Single-storey side extension (Application for Listed Building Consent) granted 10 October 2008.

10.4 Two storey side extension (96033) refused 19 April 2011.

10.5 Two storey extension (Application for Listed Building Consent) (96034) refused 19 April 2011.

10.6 Single-storey side extension (Application for extension of time to implement planning permission reference 08/93379) (96816) granted 16 November 2011.

10.7 Single-storey side extension (Application for Listed Building Consent) (Application for extension of time to implement Listed Building Consent reference 08/93380) (96821) granted 16 November 2011.

10.8 Application to remove condition 3 of planning permission 11/96932 to allow painted brickwork without timber framework (97448) pending decision.

11. ASSESSMENT

11.1 Martins Farm is a Grade II Listed building located on Shepherds Road within the village of Bartley and within the Forest North East Conservation Area. The property is set back from and built at right angles to the road. The building is a 17th century simple, linear, timber-framed lobby entrance cottage with 20th century extensions. The property has an exposed frame with painted infill brick panels, later walls of painted brick and a corrugated iron outshot. The property has a half hipped thatched roof with an eyebrow dormer. There is a half-storeyed rectangular block on the north-east elevation, a later 20th century wing, with irregular

76

fenestration. The principle elevation has a porch with a gabled thatch roof extending from the eaves with walls constructed of vertical boarding and a half glazed door. The iron clad outshot is sited at the south-west end.

11.2 Consent is sought to remove condition 3 of planning permission 11/96932 to allow painted brickwork without timber framework. Condition 3 states: "No development shall take place until samples or exact details (including the treatment, finish and colour) of the timber cladding shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority.

Reason: To preserve the special architectural character, historic interest and appearance of the listed building in accordance with Policies DP1, DP6 and CP7 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010)."

11.3 Significant care was taken over the design of the two storey side extension which was granted planning permission (96932) after a previous application (96033) for a two storey extension was refused. It was important to ensure that the extension read as a later addition and as subservient to the original farmhouse. The use of timber boarding was actually advanced as an argument in favour of the approved application where the applicants Heritage Statement confirmed the following: "The extension will be constructed of blockwork and finished with weather-boarded cladding of natural oak boards (the detailed finishes of these to be agreed with the conservation officer)... The proposed extension seeks to replicate a simple outbuilding form and reflects the Hampshire and New Forest vernacular of natural oak weatherboarding with a plan clay tile roof. In addition it will accentuate the importance and original architectural quality of the timber framed house by providing a complementary contrast to the original farmhouse... The extension will be most apparent from the public roadside but it intended to act as a typical building type and form found in a farm group such as this. It will over time become weathered so as to be subservient to the timber framing and that of the principle building...The proposed form and use of materials is designed to better respond to the courtyard character of the grouping of agricultural buildings which forms Martins Farm... and seen as an appropriate addition to this grouping."

11.4 Planning permission was granted on the basis that the extension would be subservient to the main building and would read as a converted outbuilding and this is in line with guidance contained in the approved Design Guide (SPD). The proposed changes are materially different from the approved plans and the change in materials would make it difficult to read the various stages of

77

development. The proposed use of painted brickwork would not be appropriate to the listed building in comparison with the approved plans which show a timber clad extension, which subsequently reads as an outbuilding.

11.5 The approved extension had been carefully designed to reflect a simple, uncomplicated agricultural form with traditional detailing (such as the fenestration, natural oak weatherboarding, the use of a plain clay tiled roof, exposed rafters etc.) and would complement the style of the existing cottage. The removal of condition 3 would effectively result in an extension faced in brick which would neither preserve or enhance the character and setting of the listed building and would actually add to the existing design faults in the 20th century extension. Removal of condition 3 is therefore recommended for refusal.

12. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse Reason(s)

1. The removal of condition 3 (application 11/96932) would result in an extension faced in brick as opposed to the approved extension which was designed to reflect a simple, uncomplicated agricultural form with traditional detailing such as natural oak weatherboarding which would complement the style of the existing listed building. The removal of condition 3 would result in an extension which would neither preserve nor enhance the character, appearance or setting of the listed building. The development would therefore be contrary to policies CP7, DP1 and DP6 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010), section 7 and section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Design Guide (SPD).

78


Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Date: 31/05/2012

SCALE: 1:5000

Ref: 12/97449/LBC


00m10

43

12 14

00m16

43

431000m

12 14

431600m

00m2011

22

24

26

00m2811

112000m

22

24

26

112800m

79

planning development control committee - 19 june 2012 ... · 8.1 conservation officer: recommend...

Documents