29328/MOT MARTIN TUCKER LTD 28 January 2021 Contract No. 11414 Architectural Services & Interior Designers

Low Leas Barns Low Leas Newark & Sherwood District Council Riber Castle House Derbyshire Great North Road DE4 5JR Newark 01629 530707 NG24 1BY 07771 565439 martintucker.net [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam

DESIGN + ACCESS STATEMENT PREAPP/00178/19 - HOUSHOLDER PLANNING APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRICTION OF A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND REPLACEMENT OF THE CONSERVATORY WITH A TWO STOREY EXTENSION AT; THE OLD POST HOUSE, GONALSTON, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE, NG14 7JA

Please find attached a Householder Planning Application with respect to the above site following our Pre-App enquiry of the 24 July 2019 and response received on the 6 September 2019.

Whilst this response from Gareth Elliott was not encouraging we wish to explore this further with a revised scheme simplified and best suited to our clients requirements in terms of appearance and accommodation needs.

The man issue with this site is the fact it is within the Green Belt but not within the Gonalston Conservation Area.

We also wish to highlight the ludicrous position of this site that can still benefit from PD and a LDC, where we have a large garage proposal supported with an LDC last year, yet if a fraction higher would need Planning and fail the test because of the Green Belt.

The house has undergone significant changes, extensions and alterations in the decades past and was originally a relatively small structure from the early C19. There was a good range of outbuildings extending to the South and the main frontage is to the North, albeit the main access is now to the East side of the site.

Additional garages of two storey formats due to the pitch of the roofs and depth of structure have been built over the years and with enough space to house about nine vehicles and with a small workshop, together with a shed, greenhouse and oil storage.

In July 2019 we proposed two extensions to the house that where immaterial visually but due to Green Belt stated to be inappropriate, we also included a proposal for additional and significant garaging which also was regarded as inappropriate due to the Green Belt, but was subsequently Approved under a LDC. We understand these limits but what is frustrating here with projects such as this is attempting to work out why N+SDC “pull up th drawbridge” in relation to further/future extension. Your Pre-App response of the 6 Sept 2019 lists no fewer than 7 permissions to extend the property, 5 of which were granted after adoption of the and Derby Green Belt in April 1983. So why s it now, that the Council consider future extensions to be disproportionate tpo the original dwelling and therefore unacceptable in Green Belt terms?

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY 09/01129/FUL - Householder application for conservatory – Approved 08.10.2009 08/00676/FUL - Erection of 2 storey extension & increase of existing roof height Approved 24.07.2008. 03/01559/FUL - Proposed extension and new detached garage and new glazed rooflight to the existing house – Approved 19.08.2003 03/00574/FUL Proposed two storey extension with new detached garage building. Together with addition of glazed rooflight to existing house – Refused 07.05.2003 98/50796/FUL –Replacement Garage – Approved 15.03.1999 88890769 – Alterations and First Floor Extension – Approved 01.08.1989 88871054 – Change of use of outbuildings into Granny Flat – Approved 03.12.1987-3 8879957 – Build Over existing swimming pool – Approved 05.10.1979 8877366 - Carry out extension at form study and bathroom – Approved 27.06.1977

We know that historically Planning Officers were a lot more pragmatic and realistic, but why were large extensions in 2003 and 2008 considered to be policy compliant and acceptable, whereas what we are now proposing is not? Green Belt policy has changed very little during this time, so it must just be the application of that policy that has changed, which now leaves us to face a negative default position from the Council that have Green Belt within their District.

Yu have stated that under current Policy there is no definitive percentage of floor space increase considered to be appropriate development within the Green Belt and as such, it is one of judgement for the LPA. Generally, and as a rule of thumb where other local planning authorities have set thresholds within development plan policies these typically range between 30 to 50% (volume and/or floorspace increase) in determining whether householder extensions are disproportionate to the original dwelling. This has already been massively exceeded as can be seen by the Approvals Granted by N+SDC.

You have also stated that having had regard to the planning history at the site, the dwelling has been extended substantially over a period of time and to an extent that far exceeds the 50% increase threshold set out above. Therefore, while the increases to the dwelling from the proposed first floor extensions are relatively modest, the cumulative increases from the previous applications result in a disproportionate addition to a building within the Green Belt. So this is exactly the point of the submission. These two extensions are nothing in relation to what has been Approved and have no material impact that could give rise to alarm or perception that te house has been over extended. That has already happened.

GOOGLE IMAGE OF THE SITE AS EXISTING

Having read through the Council’s pre-app comments it would appear that it is only the matter of scale and massing that would be at issue here, although you do suggest that a Heritage Impact Assessment will be required in order to justify the development in relation to the ‘non-designated heritage asset’. Included in this document.

For clarity we show a sales plan indicating all the current accommodation as an overall floor plan in which can be seen the garaging and floor areas. Surveys are attached with this submission.

North elevation with conservatory that we propose to replace and construct two storey

East elevation where we propose to remove the conservatory and add a two storey extension that matches as opposed to being subservient.

Oblique view of West elevation from North

Oblique view looking North of West elevation, a lean-to can be seen to the gable and this is where we propose to add a first floor gable detail.

South end two storey-garage attached to house

View looking North of detached garages to the right for four cars and timber garaging on left for three cars and workshop.

DESIGN The site is in the Green Belt and a Conservation Area and so we appreciate that some liaison is required to justify the need and what is now proposed.

The property has been Granted major change over the years and is significantly larger than the host dwelling. Our view is that the two small additions proposed over the lean-to to the West and replacement of the conservatory to the East are not significant the East extension being set over a relatively recent Consent.

It does square off the structure but we are proposing designs that reflect the form and style of the house that exists and do not have any negative impact. The issue is the Green Belt Policies.

What has been Approved in the past has created disproportionate increases over and above the host dwelling C19, but that has been the prerogative of N+SDC to support and Approve irrespective of the Green Belt Policies in place at the time. So the damage has been done. What is now proposed is deminimus.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES We are aware of the Policies relevant and have looked carefully at other schemes locally however Gonalston is rather different to other villages.

Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Adopted March 2019 Spatial Policy 4B: Green Belt Development Core Policy 9: Sustainable Design Core Policy 14: Historic Environment

Allocations and Development Management DPD Adopted July 2013 Policy DM5: Design Policy DM6: Householder Development Policy DM9: Protecting and Enhancing Historic Environment Policy DM12: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 National Planning Practice Guidance (2014) Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Gonalston Conservation Area Appraisal. The property is outside the Conservation Area. N&S Householder Development SPD 2014

Section 9 of the NPPF (Protecting Green Belt Land) stresses the importance of “openness and permanence” within green belts. The objectives of the policy are to check unrestricted sprawl, prevent merging of settlements, safeguarding the countryside, preserving the setting and character of villages, and assisting urban regeneration.

Inappropriate development should not be permitted. The NPPF notes that an exception is the “extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building”.

The property has been expanded over the years to such an extent as to make this consideration inappropriate and unworkable, see previous comments and as stated the two additions proposed are minor relative to the LDC for the garage structure that has a massive impact on the Green Belt yet is allowed.

AREAS, SCALE AND MASSING The existing floor area of the house and garages areas are as follows; House = 541m2 Garages = 152m2 Existing site area 0.84 Hectares

The two first floor extensions equate = 25m2 (a 3.5% increase)

If volumes are required to be calculated these can be provided.

FLOODING The actual house and its appendages are outside Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3, parts of the garden areas are within with Zone 2 and 3. We are not increasing the footprint so this proposal has no negative impact.

CONCLUSION While noting there is no defined percentage for what constitutes ‘inappropriate’ development, the general guidance is extensions to be no greater than 50% above the existing floor space, however this has been massively exceeded over the years so what is now proposed is very slight increase and in the overall context of what exists and cannot from any perspective be regarded as damaging to the Green Belt or the property as a whole.

We therefore to appeal to a common sense approach and whilst this is an increase that goes against the principles of the Green Belt Policies, it is so minor in the overall context of the scale of the property that exists as to be completely harmless to the perceived impact that is really nothing more than applying a Policy for the sake of it.

There are still Permitted Developments Rights that can be utilised and exploited on this property on the existing West side elevations that have not been previously extended that would and could have a far more detrimental effect than what is proposed in this submission.

ENCLOSURES ARE AS FOLLOWS; 35742-01-P A2@100 Existing GF 35742-02-PS A2@100 Existing FF 35742-03-P A2@100 Existing rood + garages 35742-04-E A2@100 Existing elevations 35742-T-REV0 GH Existing site topo 11414/20 Proposed elevs 11414/21 Proposed elevs 11414/22 Proposed GF 11414/23 Proposed FF 11414/24 Existing site plan 11414/25 Proposed site plan Location Pan Heritage Statement Application Forms and fees via Planning Portal

If you should require more information please contact this office.

Yours faithfully

Martin Tucker

MARTIN TUCKER LTD