FACE IT Response to Applications 24/00922/LDC and 24/00925/GPDBUH for an extension and creation of a first floor at Nyasaland

FACE IT Response to Applications 24/00922/LDC and 24/00925/GPDBUH for an extension and creation of a first floor at Nyasaland 

FACE IT objects to both of these applications for the reasons explained below..


No Existing Dwelling

These applications are for extensions to an existing dwelling, both outwards and upwards.  But there is no existing dwelling, as the caravan that was used as a temporary dwelling previously on the site has been demolished by the site owner.

Site Location

We note that the 'Block Plan' for both applications shows an approximate location of a portacabin.

It is not clear on what legal or planning basis the TWO portacabins now on the site, at least one of which appears to be permanently occupied, have been erected but no planning information appears to be available about how they were allowed to be there.

The application provides location and elevations of an 'existing' portakabin but these do not prove that the 'existing' portakabin (whichever one is being referred to) are in the same location or to the same footprint, size and orientation of the previous caravan which has now been demolished.

Evidence in the  FACE IT Response to Hart District Planning Application 21/01725/FUL clearly shows the derelict remains of the previous caravan but Hart would need to be satisfied that the application relates to a building in the same location as the previous caravan to which any concession by Hart of Previously Developed Land (PDL) or a previously existing 'dwelling' may have related.


Site is not PDL

The question of this site, curtilage and PDL was raised and discussed at length with Planning inspector A Walker at the appeals hearing on 17 October 2023 for applications 22/02794/OUT and 22/01510/FUL (Appeal Decisions report for appeals APP/N1730/W/23/3325419 and APP/N1730/W/23/3318602 resulting in the Inspector's report dd 17 November 2023. 


This report is referred to below.


We note that the site in this application again includes the entirety of the field. Again the large area of land included within the application is well outside the footprint of the old caravan that used to be on the site.

It is clear from the Inspector's decision (cf. para 17) that "not all of the site falls within the curtilage of the [previous] dwelling. Indeed, little, if any, of the land beyond its footprint is considered to be its curtilage and that the dwelling forms a very small part of the site."


Cannot Extend a Non-Existent Building

We also note from the report that the Inspector concluded (cf. para 22) that the previous application sought not to reuse a building but to replace one. As the 'existing dwelling' (the previous derelict caravan) has now been demolished, we fail to see how this planning application can be considered as an extension to an existing building and therefore must be considered as a replacement dwelling. The section below relates to planning Policy covering a replacement dwelling.


Outside Settlement Boundary and Contrary to Policy

The site is outside the recognised settlement boundary. The inspector also determined (cf. para 19) that Policy SB01 of the Crookham Village Parish Neighbourhood Plan (as made in 2021) (NP) also restricts development outside settlement boundaries to certain forms of development and that the previous proposals would fail to comply with the requirements of Policy SB01. The inspector concluded that (cf. para 21) "taken as a whole, the development plan does not support the principle of replacement dwellings outside settlement boundaries within Crookham Village Parish."

This application does not make a case why the policy (and the Inspector's decision on its application) should be disapplied for this new application.


No SANG Provision

There appears to be no SANG provision proposed within the application. 


Inappropriate Development and Out of Character

The boxy square appearance of the proposed dwelling is clearly out of character for the area in which it is proposed as indeed are the two portacabins that are somehow currently on the site and these are not the basis on which to provide a dwelling that is sympathetic to the character of the street scene or its location close to the setting of the Crookham Village Conservation Area and Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area.


This is consistent with the reasons for rejection of previous proposals for a single dwelling on the site (cf. paras 30 to 33 of the Inspector's report).

Due to the size of the proposals, even more so if taken together, the overall floorspace of the new dwelling would be considerably greater than the cumulative floorspace of the previously existing 'dwelling'. 

Therefore, the overall mass of built-form would be significantly greater.  Moreover, it would be consolidated into one large building, rather than dispersed between two modest sized buildings that are notably distant from each other. Consequently, the new dwelling would reduce the openness of the site. 

In conclusion we object to these applications for the reasons given above and urge them to be refused.