Raw Planning Ltd submits application to NFDC for work at Grade II listed Fordingbridge building built in 1702

PLANS to reconfigure an 18th century Grade II listed building in Fordingbridge have been submitted.

The owner of 47 to 49 High Street is seeking listed building alteration consent and full planning permission for single-storey rear and side extensions to the property.

The applicant is proposing an internal reconfiguration of the 1702 building, which is in the Fordingbridge conservation area, to provide a shop at ground level and three flats at ground, first and second floor levels.

If approved, the works would include a new pitched roof to the existing two-storey rear projection of the building and alterations to the fenestration.

Paperwork submitted to New Forest District Council said the new application follows the refusal of a similar scheme in August 2023 due to concerns over the impact of development on heritage assets and residential amenity.

The applicant said their new plan seeks to address the reasons for prior refusal by proposing an “alternative scheme which positively responds to the historic fabric of the listed building and its setting”.

In a design and access statement, they said: “The building comprises a vacant ground floor shop unit, with associated staff facilities and an externally accessed storage area.

“An unoccupied five-bedroom flat lies above the shop unit… independent of the commercial unit. To the rear are unsympathetic modern additions.”

The applicant is proposing reinstating missing ceilings on the ground floor, replastering the walls, repointing brickwork and forming a two-bed flat to the rear.

On the first floor, the applicant proposes the provision of a three-bed flat, with internal reconfigurations and changes to the windows, as well as replacing a timber frame rooflight on the second floor.

The design and access statement continues: “The building has been vacant for several years and is in a poor state of repair.

“Furthermore, the existing five-bedroom residential unit is not viable, as evidenced through earlier planning applications.”