PLANNING STATEMENT

Demolish Part of Existing Extension to Dwelling, Erect Detached Garage/Annex Building, Construct Swimming Pool, Erection Oak Framed Building, Construct Tennis Courts and Construct New Gravel Driveway

Clayworth Manor Wiseton Road Clayworth

Prepared by

March 2021

1. INTRODUCTION

The following report has been prepared by Mark Simmonds Planning Services on behalf of Max Design Consultancy in support of a planning application for householder development at Clayworth Manor, Wiseton Road, Clayworth, Retford.

The proposals comprise demolition part of existing extension to dwelling, erection of detached garage/annex building, construction of swimming pool, erection of oak framed building, construction of tennis courts and a new gravel driveway.

The aim of this document is to provide a brief overview of the site and its planning history, and most importantly, demonstrate the compliance of the proposals with the planning policy framework based on both local and national policies.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

2.1. Site Location

The site is within the village of Clayworth which is defined by the Bassetlaw Core Strategy as a Policy CS9 area (All Other Settlements), as it does not benefit from the services or facilities required to provide a sustainable settlement.

The site is halfway between Clayworth and Wiseton surrounded by fields.

The site is within the Clayworth Conservation Area where developments will only be permitted which seek to conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the historic area.

Clayworth Manor is a Grade II Listed Building. Manor Cottage is a separate dwelling under different ownership which is immediately adjacent to the site. The application property is within the wider setting of two further listed buildings that are not visible from the site, Rose Cottage (Grade II) and St Peter Church (Grade I).

2.2. Site

Open countryside predominates the surrounding of the site other than the carriageway of Wiseton Road. The runs close to the west boundary of the site.

There is a rise in land levels from the road into the site. The property is set back from the road by approximately 50m. Extensive hedge and mature trees heavily conceals the site from neighbouring land. The grounds have a range of buildings extending southeast from the house

2.3. Planning history

18/01193/CAT Boundary Poplar Trees Reduce by 40% (Approx. 6m) and Not to make a Fell 1 x Cherry Tree Tree Preservation Order 18/00819/COND Discharge of Conditions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of P.A. Approved 18/00039/HSE - Erect Single Storey Rear Extension and First Floor Rear Extension 18/00040/LBA Erect Single Storey Rear Extension and First Floor Rear Approved Extension 18/00039/HSE Erect Single Storey Rear Extension and First Floor Rear Approved Extension 15/00013/HSE Erect Two Storey Rear Extension to Dwelling and Alterations Refused to the Existing Roof to Create a Hipped Roof Structure and Erection of Orangery to Side of Dwelling 11/10/00005/L Alterations and Extension to Dwelling Approved 11/10/00004 Alterations and Extension to Dwelling Approved 11/91/00017 Erect 2 Detached Dwellings Refused

3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The proposals comprise demolition part of existing extension to dwelling, erection of detached garage/annex building, construction of swimming pool, construction of tennis courts and a new gravel driveway.

4. PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE

To ascertain the Local Planning Authority’s position to the reception of the above-mentioned proposals, Max Design Consultancy submitted a request for pre-application advice to the Development Management team of Council.

The pre-application request (18/00972/PREAPP) was received and advice was given by case officer Yeung Browne on 28 September 2018. Please find below the conclusions of the pre-liminary assessment of the development:

“The existing garage/annex are constructed of combination of timber and brick, not of historic or architectural interest; as such their demolition is likely to be supported.

The proposal for a detached garage and annex is located approximately in the location of a former rectangular building that was demolished at some time after 1921. The proposed building layout is T- shaped and appears to be a substantial building (compare to footprint of main house). Overall, the scale and positioning of the building is concern. Scale, position and design will need to appear harmonious in the setting of the Grade II listed Manor. The garden has had an open swimming pool of many years. Repositioning an open pool is unlikely to harm the setting of the Manor house. The creation of a tennis court in unlikely to harm the setting of the Manor house. The submitted image of the proposed court suggests low level hedges and trellis fences to denote the court. This is preferably to high sides netted fences.

The proposed oak framed canopy may be considered to be a gazebo popular in garden design since the 17th century, designed to enjoy extensive views of a landscape. A gazebo is unlikely to be harmful to the setting of the listed building. Consideration could be taken to combining gazebo design and design for any structures/fences associated the tennis court so that both elements appear harmonious.

The existing driveway and parking area appears to have been a service yard and driveway area for many years. The 19th and early 20th century OS plans show this. Care should be taken not to remove the historic understanding of this space through new landscaping which could occur with introduction of fully grassed/lawn areas. A high degree of hard landscaping is likely to be considered more appropriate. There is no objection to the principle of extending the drive, or the use of gravel, to the northeast but this should not encroach substantially into the garden area. The extent of extending the drive will be determined by the position and design of the proposed garage, which does require further design work at this stage.”

5. PLANNING POLICY

In determining the application, the most relevant planning policy documents includes the following:

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended)

 Article 7(1)  Article 16(2)

The National Planning Policy Framework

 Part 12 (Achieving Well Designed Places)  Part 16 (Historic Environment)

Bassetlaw District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (2011)

 Policy CS1: Settlement Hierarchy  Policy CS9: All other Settlements  Policy DM3: General development in the Countryside  Policy DM4: Design and Character  Policy DM8: The Historic Environment  Policy DM11: Developer Contributions & Infrastructure Provision

Supplementary Planning Documents

 The Residential Design SPD (Successful Places)

5.1. Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended)

This Act provides specific protection for buildings and areas of special architectural or historic interest. It is comprehensive and sets out the town planning regime for listed buildings and conservation areas, from authorisation of works to enforcement as well as rights of owners and special cases.

Article 7(1) establishes that “subject to the following provisions of this Act, no person shall execute or cause to be executed any works for the demolition of a listed building or for its alteration or extension in any manner which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, unless the works are authorised”.

Article 16(2) states that “in considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority or the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.

5.2. National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for and how these should be applied. It provides a framework within which locally-prepared plans for housing and other development can be produced. The Framework should be read as a whole (including its footnotes and annexes).

Section 12. Achieving well-designed places

Paragraph 124 states that “good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities”.

Paragraph 127 sets out that “planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience”

The form of development would be sympathetic to the local character and history of the site. The replacement annexe/building would be positioned in a complementary arrangement perpendicular from the existing footprint.

It is considered that the creation of a semi-enclosed courtyard would be in keeping with the historic farm use of the location.

The external appearance of the annexe, garage and oak outbuilding would be in keeping with Clayworth Manor. The new swimming pool and driveway extension would relate well with the residential nature of the property. The detailing of the development would deliver high quality design standards to the current fabric of the property.

Section 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Paragraph 193 states that “when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation”. It goes on to say that “this is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance”.

Proposed development affecting a heritage asset may have no impact on its significance or may enhance its significance and therefore cause no harm to the heritage asset. Where potential harm to designated heritage assets is identified, it needs to be categorised as either less than substantial harm or substantial harm which includes total loss.

In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it does not arise in many cases and the proposal hereby is not an exception to that.

It is therefore relevant to be mindful of Paragraph 196 which sets out that “where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use”.

The development proposals would be sensitive to the historic significance of Clayworth Manor by virtue of design and layout, thereby the harm would be negligible. Clayworth Manor has been in residential use since its construction and the householder nature of the proposals would meet the demands of the existing occupiers.

5.3 Bassetlaw District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (2011)

The Core Strategy, with its Development Control policies and Proposals Map, was adopted by Bassetlaw District Council on 22 December 2011. It identifies the settlements to which new development will be directed and the amount of new housing and employment land that will be provided in these areas up to 2028. Most significantly, IT has a fundamental role to play in delivering the Council’s long-term vision for sustainable growth in the District.

Policy CS1: Settlement Hierarchy

This settlement hierarchy defines the roles and functions of the settlements across Bassetlaw and sets the framework through which the distribution and scale of development in the District will be managed.

The Proposals Map indicates that the site is within the village of Clayworth which is defined by the Bassetlaw Core Strategy as a Policy CS9 area (All Other Settlements).

Policy CS9: All other Settlements

Those settlements that are not listed in higher tiers have limited or no service/facility provision and are reliant upon other settlements for such needs. It is not felt to be appropriate to encourage more housing in these areas (other than conversions or replacement dwellings) as this is likely to increase the need for residents to travel to access even basic services. Conversely, it is important to allow for community infrastructure that will meet local needs in order to enhance the quality of life for existing residents.

With regards to new housing, this policy states that “proposals for the development of housing within these settlements, other than for conversions or replacement dwellings in line with Policies DM2 and DM3, will not be supported”.

The development proposals are clearly subservient to the main dwellinghouse and are not aimed to provide new dwelling(s). No sequential approach therefore should be applied in this case in light of the ancillary use of the development to an existing dwelling.

Policy DM3: General development in the Countryside

This policy establishes that “proposals for the replacement of buildings outside Development Boundaries will be supported where they can demonstrate that: i. (other than where these are existing houses) it is unviable to use or convert the buildings for other uses (see Policy DM2); ii. the buildings to be replaced are of a permanent design and construction; iii. the replacement is located over the footprint of, or close to, the original building; iv. the scale, design and form of the replacement is appropriate to its setting and location; v. the proposed use and number of units will be sustainable and appropriate in terms of location and accessibility; vi. the proposed use will not have an adverse impact on the vitality or viability of local centres; rural service centres; and shops and services in surrounding villages; and vii. they will not create significant or exacerbate existing environmental or highway safety problems”

The replacement annexe/garage would be of appropriate scale, design and form. Likewise, the other proposals would not appear excessive in relation to the existing built environment. The replacement annexe/garage would be approximately located where the building to demolish currently stands on. No detrimental impact is anticipated by reason of the householder development upon the site and overall, the area.

This policy goes on that to say “proposals for new agricultural/forestry buildings and domestic equine facilities will be supported where they can demonstrate that: i. the buildings or structures are necessary for agricultural, forestry or domestic equine purposes in the specific location proposed and other more suitable sites are unavailable; ii. the scale, design, and form of the proposal, in terms of both buildings and operation, will be appropriate for its location and setting and be compatible with surrounding land uses; and; iii. they will not create or exacerbate environmental or highway safety problems”

A tack room and tractor/equipment storage would be provided within the proposed replacement annexe/garage building. The use intensity and scale of the equine/agricultural room would be very low. It has been deemed further appropriate to provide small room within the garage element rather than erecting a standalone outbuilding which could be far harmful to the heritage asset’s setting and most importantly, an unnecessary form of development.

Policy DM4: Design and Character

This policy echoes the NPPF considerations about design, layout and impact upon local character of any area. It is a flexible policy that “will take account of site specifics and local circumstance, while at the same time supporting the use of Building for Life and setting a clear design criteria applicable at different scales”.

Policy DM4 states that “individual development proposals, including single buildings, changes of use or extensions to existing buildings, will only be accepted where they are of a high-quality design that addresses the relevant areas: i) local character and distinctiveness; ii) architectural quality; iii) public realm; iv) accessibility; v) amenity; and vi) carbon reduction”

The development as a whole is acceptable on the grounds of design and layout. Further consideration has been previously made in this respect. All proposals have been designed to incorporate the principles and criteria contained in Policy DM4.

Policy DM8: The Historic Environment

The supporting text states that Bassetlaw has a distinctive historic environment and a wealth of heritage assets that should be protected or enhanced. It also says that planning plays a crucial role in conserving the historic environment through the application of legislation, policy and guidance.

For development affecting heritage assets, “there will be a presumption against development, alteration, advertising or demolition that will be detrimental to the significance of a heritage asset.

This policy also sets out that “proposed development affecting heritage assets, including alterations and extensions that are of an inappropriate scale, design or material, or which lead to the loss of important spaces, including infilling, will not be supported.”

It goes on to say that “proposals that fail to preserve or enhance the setting of a heritage asset will not be supported” and “where appropriate, regard shall be given to any approved characterisation study or appraisal of the heritage asset”. The following considerations should be made for proposals within the setting of heritage assets: i) scale; ii) design; iii) materials; iv) siting; and v.) views away from and towards the heritage asset.

The impact of the proposals to the historic environment has been comprehensively assessed in the Heritage Appraisal & Impact Assessment. The findings demonstrate that such impact is deemed acceptable as no unduly harm would occur upon the Listed Building and its setting nor the Conservation Area should the proposals be developed.

Draft Bassetlaw Local Plan (November 2020)

The Draft Bassetlaw Local Plan included strategic policies and proposed site allocations and was consulted on in January-February 2020. Further consultation was made by January 2021. Upon adoption, the Draft Plan will replace the 2011 Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Albeit its provisional status, it is worth taking into account the draft content concerning historic environment (Policy ST44) that might come into effect in the near future.

“A. The historic environment will be conserved and enhanced, sensitively managed and enjoyed for its contribution to character, local distinctiveness and sustainable communities by:

1. Giving great weight to the conservation of heritage assets (designated and non designated) and their settings based on their significance in accordance with national policy1, and by ensuring that their significance is recognised through Heritage Statements, Characterisation Studies and other relevant documentation; 2. Supporting Heritage Statements that are proportionate to the asset(s) significance and complexity of the application, by ensuring that each statement identifies all assets likely to be affected, the significance of those assets and the level of impact with explanation provided to demonstrate how any harm to significance has been avoided, minimised or mitigated against; 3. Supporting new development which makes a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment; 4. Ensuring that historic designed landscapes are positively conserved or enhanced; 5. Supporting and developing innovative initiatives that identify, maintain, conserve, sustain or return to beneficial use designated or non-designated assets; 6. Capitalising in an appropriate and sensitive manner the regeneration, tourism and energy efficiency potential of heritage assets; 7. Taking a positive and proactive approach to securing the conservation and re-use of heritage assets ‘at risk’, including working with owners and partner organisations to develop schemes that will address the ‘at risk’ status of the assets and exploring opportunities for grant-funding to deliver viable schemes; 8. Reviewing existing local heritage designations, such as conservation areas, and making new designations to protect and conserve-built heritage assets, where justified, by appropriate surveys and evidence; 9. Using Article 4 Directions, where appropriate, to protect features of historic/architectural importance and to restrict harmful minor alterations; and 10. Improving access and enjoyment of the historic environment where appropriate, by supporting proposals that retain, create or facilitate public access to heritage assets to increase understanding of their significance.

A set of specific criteria has been set out for designated heritage assets and archaeological sites of equivalent significance, as follows.

A. Proposals affecting designated heritage assets and/or their settings should: 1. Be sympathetic and complementary to the local vernacular in terms of its scale, massing, alignment, proportions, form, architectural style, building technique(s), building materials, detailing and its setting, or are of a high quality contemporary or innovative nature which complements the local vernacular; 2. Be reflective of the historic setting in terms of use a traditional siting, layout and urban grain; 3. Use landscaping, boundary treatments and surfacing appropriate to the historic setting; 4. Reflect the traditional roofscape in the vicinity; 5. Ensure significant views away from, through, towards and associated with the heritage asset(s) are preserved or enhanced. B. Proposals involving enabling development associated with heritage assets ‘at risk’ will be supported where a clear justification is provided that results in the conservation of the heritage asset ‘at risk’ and its setting. C. Proposals involving the viable new use of a designated heritage asset or temporary use of a heritage asset ‘at risk’ that conserves significance, or that which preserves or enhances the character and appearance of a conservation area will be supported. D. Proposals that result in substantial harm or loss of significance of designated heritage assets will only be considered in exceptional circumstances and with clear and convincing justification. E. Proposals that result in less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset will only be supported where it is demonstrated that the public benefits will outweigh any harm identified.

The draft policy is in essential echoing the NPPF considerations on heritage and Policy DM8 of Core Strategy. However, it provides further clarity and guidance on how to assess the impact of new development upon the historic environment and design the proposals in a sympathetic manner with the heritage assets.

6. CONCLUSIONS

In accordance with the above justification, it is asserted that the proposed development described will comply with all relevant national and local planning policies concerning historic environment.

As established, it has been shown that the proposed building would be acceptable in its form and appearance to the Grade II Listed Building Clayworth Manor and it’s setting as required to be compliant with policy.

The design has been shown to prevent any significant conflict with the designated heritage asset. Overall, developing the site in the manner proposed will deliver sustainable development and it is therefore asserted that it should be viewed favourably by the Local Planning Authority to enable determination.