Planning The Thorn’s Beach planning
journey began in 2011 with the architecture and
landscaping designed by Charles Morris and the
planning and urban design by Turley Associates. Plans
submitted were for a replacement dwelling, demolition
of the existing, installation of ground-level domestic
renewable energy systems and associated tree planting
within the 5-acre site.
The footprint of the property purchased in of its position in relation to surrounding
2005 was significantly reduced compared landscape and seascape
to that of the early years of the site. After C.3 the design and character of the proposed
World War II, the former set of buildings on development is not such as to justify it being
site were removed and a replacement beach an appropriate addition to this special and
house was constructed – the residence of distinctive landscape
Helen Tew. A single storey dwelling of cor- C.4 the building because of its size, style
rugated tin walls and asbestos roof sheeting, and pretension, would be an alien presence
it totalled approximately 161m2. in the wider landscapeD. The proposed
The decision was made to withdraw the development would be contrary to the
application 10/95979 after it attracted 29 let- statutory purposes of the National Park,
ters of support, 38 letters of objection, and 3 policies CP8, DP6, CP2 and DP5 of the New
letters offering comments and consultations Forest National Park Core Strategy and
with stakeholders, neighbours, and officers. Development Management Policies (DPD)
A series of design changes occurred follow- (December 2010) and the Supplementary
ing a detailed review of the comments of Planning Document Design Guide.E.
neighbours, stakeholders and officers and The Local Planning Authority considers
a new set of plans 12/97684 were submitted it important to resist the cumulative effect
in August 2012. These were refused on the of significant enlargements being made to
following grounds: dwellings in order to help safeguard the long
A. The proposed dwelling cannot be rec- term future of the countryside.
onciled with National Planning Policy F. Policy DP10 of the New Forest National
Framework paragraph 55 because: Park Core Strategy and Development
A.1 the site is not isolated Management Policies (DPD) (December
A.2 the dwelling would not be of a design 2010) seeks to limit the proportional increase
that is truly outstanding or innovative in the size of such dwellings in the New
A.3 the dwelling would not significantly Forest National Park recognising the ben-
enhance or protect its immediate setting efits this would have in minimising the
B. The National Park Authority is con- impact of buildings and activity generally in
cerned that this proposal if permitted would the countryside and the ability to maintain a
create a precedent in this sensitive coastal balance in the housing stock.
environment of the National Park.C. The G. This proposal, taking into account a
proposed development would be particu- previous enlargement, would result in a
larly harmful to the landscape character of building which is unacceptably large in
this part of the New Forest National Park relation to the original dwelling and would
because: undesirably add to pressures for change
C.1 it would be a significant replacement which are damaging to the future of the
dwelling in an otherwise open setting countryside.
C.2 it would be prominently sited by reason A detailed appeal was launched arguing
aginst each of the above points – this was F. The proposed pavilion building, would Beach, it was considered that the designs
dismissed in October 2013. result in a domesticated outbuilding of a were excessive for the site location, particu-
A revised application was submitted on 24 size which would not be considered to be larly in comparison to the existing dwelling
June 2014 14/00520. The revised planning incidental, providing ancillary habitable and not the original (The Bung).
application attracted 13 letters of support, accommodation that would be tantamount After discussions with the local planners of
10 letters of objection and 1 letter offering to the creation of a separate new dwelling. New Forest National Park, the proposals
comments. Planning was refused for the fol- The proposal is therefore contrary to policies for Thorns Beach House were developed
lowing reasons: DP1 and DP12 of the New Forest National to comply with the criteria and guidance
A. The proposed dwelling cannot be rec- Park Core Strategy and Development outlined in the adopted Core Strategy. As
onciled with National Planning Policy Management Policies (DPD) (December per the existing beach house, the proposed
Framework paragraph 55 because: 2010)., replacement dwelling would remain single
A.1 the dwelling would not be of a design This lead to another detailed appeal, which storey with some subservient elements
that is truly outstanding or Innovative was refused on 21 October 2014. located at mezzanine level. It was with every
A.2 the dwelling would not significantly A fourth planning application 15/00151 was intention that the development would ulti-
enhance or protect its immediate setting. submitted in February 2015; the design of mately benefit the site for many years and
B. The National Park Authority is con- the beach house was modified and amended avoid impacting the local surroundings and
cerned that this proposal if permitted would to address the detailed criticisms made by the wider landscape.
create a precedent in this sensitive coastal Planning Inspector when he dismissed the The plans included:
environment of the National Park. previous planning appeal. It was amended
C. The Local Planning Authority considers further to reflect criticisms made by Officers
it important to resist the cumulative effect in respect of the roof lanterns.
of significant enlargements being made to Outcome – refused and an appeal was
dwellings in order to help safeguard the long launched in August 2015, outcome refused.
term future of the countryside. [rephrase – consider consistent style for
D. Policy DP10 of the New Forest National appeals and outcomes]
Park Core Strategy and Development
Management Policies (DPD) (December Step in PWP [need intro text for this, eg At
2010) seeks to limit the proportional increase this point in the process PWP Architects was
in the size of such replacement dwellings in appointed.]
the New Forest National Park recognising Three applications had formerly been
the benefits this would have in minimising submitted for the proposed replacement
the impact of buildings and activity gen- dwelling at Thorns Beach House (2010,
erally in the countryside and the ability to 2012, and 2014). The applications were
maintain a balance in the housing stock. unsuccessful on the basis that the schemes
E. This proposal, would result in a building did not comply with policy DP10 and DP11
which is unacceptably large in relation to the of the adopted Core Strategy. Although pre-
original dwelling and would undesirably vious submissions drew reference to the scale
add to pressures for change which are dam- of the neighbouring homes along Thorns
aging to the future of the countryside.
[Planning letters snippets. To be used in a different font / style from the core text. Suggest sans serif.] Would you kindly record my total and detail objection to the above planning application. I believe this is the fourth attempt to replace
Helen Tew’s little tin bungalow on the Solent shore, with a massive and totally unsuitable hotch-potch design by a surveyor, not an archi-
Application 15/00151 tect, for an applicant who already owns a large house – Greatfield at Bucklers Hard, and lives in Lausanne, Switzerland.
I am along with everyone in the area very much in favour of a replacement building on the site but one that respects the overall character The boat house, illegally built by the applicant, has now at last been taken down as instructed by the inspector.
of its surroundings, this is not a place to make a “big statement”. There is no access to the Solent shore from the property. The shore down to [something] low water is owned by the Beaulieu Estate. In 1204
We have now see virtually the same design submitted time and time again, and I would have thought that it might be prudent to submit a King John granted this to the Cistercian Abbey, Bellus Locus, which he founded. [This is the pink letter – I can’t read the word above]
design that conforms to the desired criteria and is generally more appropriate to this very special geographical area.
Application 15/00151 New Forest Association objects this application. Mr Ratcliffe with his local chemical and hotel and leisure interests is a significant bene-
I personally feel that the proposed development is too large. A more modest dwelling would be fine in my view. The existing one is a bun- factor to the New Forest. His ambition, maybe obsession, to convert a beach house to a large home befitting reportedly the country’s fifth
galow, and could never be as invasive and incongruous to the present vista as the one put forward. richest man is a continuing and debilitating nuisance. It is noted that in this application Mr Ratcliffe has abandoned the paragraph 55
It would seem that the crucial document to refer to is paragraph 55 of the NPPF… I do not believe that the very minimal presence of the approach and is attempting to subvert established local planning policites to achieve his ends. No doubt this application is aimed at the
bungalow, with its low visual impact, can be improved or enhanced upon by erecting a much larger edifice in this beautiful wild pace. A appeal inspector rather than the Authority. New Forest Association pleads with Mr Ratcliffe to make enhancement of the landscape right
lower impact dwelling like the present bungalow enables the wild woods and trees to be appreciated as a rare dominion of nature amid a across his holding his primary consideration and accept this limits his ambition for space and views.
coastline otherwise dotted with continual evidence of human intrusion
Application 15/00151 The property in question is not isolation by any stretch of the imagination occupying approx. 5 acres and facing directly onto the Solent. It
Exceptional or innovative. will be easily visible from the dirt track which services the hamlet as well as from neighbouring house and importantly from the Solent.
The house does not look exceptional or innovative in any way to me. The only innovative feature that I can refer to is the jacking up of the As regards the seafront facing elevation the proposed building will be massive when compared to the existing property on this site which
house for future flood defence. However I do not think this is in any way practicable as it may be possible to lift the building but not to is barely visible…...The new building will be readily visible from the Isle of wight and by ships passing by.
control the surrounding land from flooding making access and use impossible in the long term. You cannot raise all the surrounding land Construction of such a building in such a sensitive location would take us one step closer to the planning and architectural disaster on dis-
and roads to access the site once flooded. play at Sandbanks, Poole, Dorset.
As I stated before, if the applicant wants a large house he should buy a large one to start with and not buy a small one and try to circum-
navigate planning policy.
In my opinion this application does not meet the criteria for exceptional or innovative design as required under Framework 55 DP10.
I feel the house to much too large for its site.
The house is not isolated.
The idea of jacking up the house in a flood seems to me nothing but an eye-catching gimmick that would not in fact be practical.
I also feel that it is wrong in principle to apply one rule for the very rich and another for everyone else. The normal rule in the New Forest
is that you can extend your house by 30%. Everyone else has to abide by that, why should the same not apply to this applicant? The law
should be equal for all.