LAPWORTHARCHITECTS

Our Ref: 2577 Your Ref: PP-09810726

10 May 2021

Lichfield District Council Lapworth Architects Ltd Frog Lane 4 Edward Street Birmingham B1 2RX WS13 6YZ T: 0121 455 0032 E: [email protected]

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Planning Application in respect of rear extension. At: Hollybank, Road, Pipehill, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS13 8JW This statement has been prepared by Mr M Singh of Lapworth Architects Limited on behalf of Mr Lee Goodwin of Hollybank, Walsall Road, Pipehill, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS13 8JW ("the Property"). The statement has been made in support of a Planning Application for basement works and a rear single storey extension. The local planning authority is Council ("the Council"). The Council’s concern about the acceptability of the application is likely to centre around three propositions:

a) The house itself is non-designated heritage asset; and b) The relevance of the GDPO on the case c) The impact on the openness of the Greenbelt. I shall address them in turn.

The Non-Designated Asset 1. The Property is located within the Green Belt and is within the 0-8km Zone of the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (“the SAC”). However, it is my understanding that the Property’s location within the SAC does not mean that it is within a ‘Conservation Area’ or ‘Article 2(3) land, as confirmed by the Pre- Application Advice request 20/01177/PREAPP published on 29th September 2020. 2. Historical mapping shows that the property pre-dates the first edition of maps on the system dated from 1882.

www.lapwortharchitects.com [email protected] Lapworth Architects is a trading style of Lapworth Architects Limited Company Number 07402725. VAT: 140 9495 05 LAPWORTHARCHITECTS

1882 OS Map

3. From this we deduce the form of the original dwelling and additions which have not changed substantively since the dates of these maps. Please refer to drawing 2577 02 which shows the extent of what we understand to be the original dwelling in relation to the post-1948 extensions. 4. As the site is outside of a Conservation Area there is no Conservation Area Appraisal which could provide an independent, objective assessment of the asset and those features which are considered especially characterful and important. 5. I note that the existing property may have some historic merit, albeit that it is not considered to possess sufficient architectural or historic interest to warrant listing. In these circumstances, it could be regarded as a non-designated heritage asset. This does not engage any statutory duty, but the Council may have regard to para 197 of the revised NPPF. This provides: The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. 6. The NPG provides the following guidance: A substantial majority of buildings have little or no heritage significance and thus do not constitute heritage assets. Only a minority have enough heritage interest for their significance to be a material consideration in the planning process. 7. It goes on to say: How are non-designated heritage assets identified? Local lists incorporated into Local Plans can be a positive way for the local planning authority to identify non-designated heritage assets against consistent criteria so as to improve the predictability of the potential for sustainable development. 8. Whether the existing dwelling on the application site should be characterised as a non-designated heritage asset is quintessentially a matter of planning judgement. Plainly, not every building of this age will be a non-designated heritage asset, and it is

www.lapwortharchitects.com [email protected] Lapworth Architects is a trading style of Lapworth Architects Limited Company Number 07402725. VAT: 140 9495 05 LAPWORTHARCHITECTS

not for me to say whether the Council is right or wrong to characterise the existing dwelling as a non-designated heritage asset and, in this instance, I am doubtful that much turns on it. Whether one characterises the existing house as a non-designated heritage asset should not have an overbearing decision of the final planning balance. 9. It is worth noting that the NPPF provides a permissively worded statement that: The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account. As such, there cannot be good grounds to refuse an application based on “taking into account” the effect on the significance of the house as a non-designated heritage asset by demolition of an ancillary part, and we would argue that the Council cannot simply label the house a “non-designated heritage asset”, preserve it “in aspic” and argue that demolition or large-scale changes would be unacceptable.

Quantum of work in GDPO precedent 1. Lapworth Architects would argue that 21/00152/PNH set a precedent for a quantum of built work falling within the tolerances permitted by the GDPO, and so would not require planning permission. This has been certified by the Council. The physical extent of what is capable of being permitted development is now a matter of common ground. 2. In order for this ‘PD fall-back’ to be a material consideration, it also be realistic: ie it must not simply be a theoretical possibility whose implementation is fanciful. 3. As we understand it, there is no requirement for the extension to be substantially completed before regard can be given to it. To this end, the digging of the footings for the extension in accordance with the certificate is plainly sufficient in my view to commence the development. 4. This is relevant as whatever work is done under the auspices of PD establishes the lawful baseline of an impact which is acceptable. Or, put another way, if that which requires planning permission gives rise to the same impact or a lesser impact to that which the Council has certified may be undertaken lawfully it cannot reasonably be said that the proposed development is unacceptable. 5. Accordingly, if it is concluded that the proposed demolition and replacement will give rise to a lesser impact or one that is not materially worse than the alternative [ie Mr Goodwin extending the existing property in accordance with the certificate] this would be a potent material consideration in favour of the application.

Impact on the openness of the Green Belt 1. As noted in Policy NR2 of the Lichfield Local Plan Strategy, all development within the Green Belt must retain its character and openness. 2. The concept of openness of the Green Belt in the NPPF is strictly defined in para. 87 of the NPPF: The openness of the Green Belt has a spatial aspect as well as a visual aspect, and the absence of visual intrusion does not in itself mean that there is no impact on the openness of the Green Belt because of the location of a new or materially

www.lapwortharchitects.com [email protected] Lapworth Architects is a trading style of Lapworth Architects Limited Company Number 07402725. VAT: 140 9495 05 LAPWORTHARCHITECTS

larger building there. But, as observed above, it does not follow that openness of the Green Belt has no visual dimension. 3. We would contend that determining the nature and extent of the impact on the Green Belt is quintessentially a matter of planning judgment for the decision maker. The size of the footprint and volume of the built development are important factors to be weighed in the balance [compared against what is there now, and what could be built under PD]. This is particularly so when reaching a conclusion on the impact of the development on the openness of the area. 4. The proposal looks to extend the existing cellar to meet the rear wall of the proposed extension. However, we contend that it would not increase the footprint of the building and would not have a material effect on the external appearance of the building or on its visual bulk in the green belt. Accordingly, we would argue the development could be categorised as not amounting to a “disproportionate addition” to the existing building and, hence, as “not inappropriate” development in terms of green belt policies. 5. It can be seen from the plan and volumetric calculations attached comparing the footprints of the 2 buildings that the proposed replacement occupies a smaller area and volume than the existing property and outbuildings with the permitted extension which the Council has certified may be lawfully constructed. 6. However, we would note an arithmetic comparison of area is not the be all and end all. Also relevant will be the shape, form, design and appearance of the proposed building as a key subjective part of any planning decision. Further, the location and orientation of the proposed replacement may have a bearing on the extent of any impact. We believe that careful design and feedback from the council will help to reduce the visual impact on the Green Belt and on the site’s prominent location at the crossroads. 7. Given this visible location, we are keen to assure the council that that the replacement building will be of a high-quality design and is built in a way which is sympathetic to its surroundings [and so congruent with chapter XII of the revised NPPF]. 8. We would argue the following: provided that the design quality is high, and the proposed extension would occupy a lesser footprint than the existing house with the PD extension this will point strongly towards the grant of planning permission for the latest revised design, as per policy NR2 of the Lichfield Local Plan Strategy.

Planning History As the house had not substantially been extended and is outside a Conservation Area the applicant understood that they could carry out extensions under Permitted Development, without obtaining planning permission (“PD”). This could involve a single storey rear extension projecting 8.00m from the rear wall of the original dwelling and reaching a maximum height of 4.00m and eaves height of 3.00m. Sensibly, Mr Goodwin was keen to clarify the position with the Council before pressing ahead. He submitted a Prior Notification Application under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GDPO.

www.lapwortharchitects.com [email protected] Lapworth Architects is a trading style of Lapworth Architects Limited Company Number 07402725. VAT: 140 9495 05 LAPWORTHARCHITECTS

Date Planning Application Resolution

29/09/2020 20/01177/PREAPP | Pre-Application advice for extensions N/A under Permitted Development Rights

05/03/2021 21/00152/PNH | Prior Notification: Single storey rear Prior Approval not extension projecting 8.00m from the rear wall of the original Required dwelling and reaching a maximum height of 4.00m and eaves height of 3.00m

Footprint and Volume Considerations The footprint and volume of the Original House is made up of the main house and cellar together with the outbuildings. For ease of illustration the volumes and footprints are set out below

Original House Total Existing Additions Total

Volume (m3) 349.8 44.3 371.8

Footprint (m2) 86.2 17 103.2

We would refer the LPA to Drawing number 02 which sets out how the above have been calculated.

Historic Map Permitted Volume (m3) As Existing Proposal 1880 - 1920 Development

Main House & Cellar 257.7 257.7 257.7 257.7 Rear Wing 64.7 64.7

Side Utility 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 Outbuildings 9.5 9.5 9.5

Rear Extensions 44.3 0 180.8 278.3 Add 40% 141.24 141.24 187.68

Rear Extensions not included within 40%

Sum volume (m3) 538.64 494.34 656.88 557.2

Historic Map Permitted As Existing Proposal 1880 - 1920 Development Footprint (m2) 103.2 86.2 133 130

Current Situation 1. Work has now commenced upon the renovation and extension as per 21/00152/PNH. 2. To this end, the existing house has been stripped and all carpets, internal doors, architraves and floor coverings have been removed. Plaster has been removed from some walls. Fitted wardrobes, slate slabs in the larder and a sink have also been removed.

www.lapwortharchitects.com [email protected] Lapworth Architects is a trading style of Lapworth Architects Limited Company Number 07402725. VAT: 140 9495 05 LAPWORTHARCHITECTS

3. Second, works to commence the PD sanctioned by the Council have been executed. The footings were excavated for the permitted extension on 26 April 2021. I have seen two photographs of the footings at the property taken (I am told) on 23 April 2021. a. I understand that the footings which have been dug do not comprise the total required to make good the permitted extension, but they appear to me to constitute a good start, and have been deemed satisfactory on a site inspection carried out on the 5th of May by a CICAIR-approved inspector (attached with the supplementary documentation). b. The depth of the excavation appears to be a number of feet, with a foundation of 750-800mm deemed appropriate.

Structural Engineer’s Report 1. In this case, Lapworth Architects holds that element which is to be demolished to make way for the replacement extension is not listed and makes no positive contribution to the non-designated heritage asset. The lawful way that the Council should assess the application is to compare what is on the ground at present (including what the Council agrees is an unattractive 1970s extension) with that which is proposed. 2. In general, the building and outbuildings which are proposed to be demolished are in a poor condition. All show signs of rotting of the timber work, especially to the roof areas which all shows a considerable depression. The brickwork is open jointed and generally unstable. 3. Furthermore, the walls show deterioration of the plasterwork, indicating some penetration of moisture from above or below. The pattern suggests that it is most likely that the damp proof course has been compromised and moisture is wicking from low-level. 4. In support of the application the view of a Structural Engineer from Higham Hill Structures was taken (full report included in attachment). His view was that: Due to the inherent instability within the structure, it is recommended that in the short term, the building is taken down to a safe level down, i.e. to approximately waist level, in order to prevent any further loss of structure and the potential risk to life. It is also suggested that any rebuilding that may be taking place in due course will require commencement of the construction from below foundation level, as the remaining structure is unlikely to be found suitable for reconstruction purposes due to the depth and width of foundations. New construction would also require the use of a cavity wall construction which, inevitably, the foundations (of a historic structure) will not be able to support due to the differing widths of the walls and inadequate width of the foundation to support a more modern cavity wall.” 5. The poor condition of the existing and the risk to life presented, and the impossibility of renovating the remaining outbuilding are, in our opinion, potent reasons to

www.lapwortharchitects.com [email protected] Lapworth Architects is a trading style of Lapworth Architects Limited Company Number 07402725. VAT: 140 9495 05 LAPWORTHARCHITECTS

demolish them, regardless of the green belt and non-designated heritage asset designations.

Going Forward Using the above as our starting point, we have been asked by the applicant to assess the impact on the Green Belt of the permissible developments of their Property under a Householder Planning Application. Considering the above in simple terms, the application merely seeks to demolish and replace a structure which is structurally unsound with one that is smaller in scale, volume and footprint than what would otherwise be permitted under the Prior Approval notice listed. While the green belt and non-designated heritage asset designations are relevant and have been taken into consideration as spelled out above, it is our opinion that a safer, more aesthetically pleasing option can be found.

Design Policy BE1 of the Lichfield Local Plan Strategy requires that all development including residential extensions carefully respects the surrounding built vernacular with regard to architectural design and scale, and this has informed our proposed design. The original house is a two storey two-up two-down style property with a symmetrical façade. The proposal seeks to erect a single-storey rear extension to replace the existing structurally unsound outbuildings to maximum depth of 8m across the entire width of the property with a double gabled roof with the eaves to 2.4m, retaining an appropriate scale given the locations prominent location. The existing lean-to extension would also be extended by a small amount to provide access to the relocated kitchen. The outbuildings to the rear follow the original side elevation of the property and do not extend beyond this, and the proposed extension would be in line with the original line of the building. The proposal is to use brick as a main facing material with render detailing as appropriate to match the existing finish of the home.

Conclusion With reference to the multiple approaches taken to be able to question whether this development proposed can be “inappropriate” in the Green Belt as far as national policy conceives it. We would argue that the design proposal is likely to fall within the exception set out at para 145 (d) of the revised NPPF (“the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces”). In these circumstances, I conclude that what is proposed is not “inappropriate development”. Therefore, there is no in-principle objection to the planning application and we would argue that Mr Goodwin would not be obliged to demonstrate very special circumstances to justify

www.lapwortharchitects.com [email protected] Lapworth Architects is a trading style of Lapworth Architects Limited Company Number 07402725. VAT: 140 9495 05 LAPWORTHARCHITECTS the proposal. It seems to me that the key issues for the Council will be whether (i) the demolition of the house gives rise to an unacceptable impact and (ii) the design of the replacement is high quality. I look forward to hearing from the Council regarding the above and should you require any additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me using the details on the first page of this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Manraj Singh c/o Lapworth Architects Limited

Encs: 2577-51, 52, 53, Site Inspection, Structual Engineer’s Report

CC: Mr Lee Goodwin

www.lapwortharchitects.com [email protected] Lapworth Architects is a trading style of Lapworth Architects Limited Company Number 07402725. VAT: 140 9495 05