stanton andrews architects - Ribble Valley · 2017. 8. 16. · supplementary planning guide, ‘Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings’. 2.2 Planning History It should be noted

Acorn Barn Ribchester

design and access s tatement

stanton andrews archi tects

Acorn Barn - Design S tatement July 2017

1.1 Introduction

This design statement has been prepared to support a householder application for Acorn

Barn which is situated to the east of Ribchester Road, to the south-east of Ribchester.

This report seeks to demonstrate that the proposals have undergone a formal and

thoughtful design process and that the resultant scheme is a response to site context,

access, massing, orientation, materiality and architectural detail and that a sustainable

approach has been adopted.

The statement also demonstrates that the proposed development has been assessed for

compliance with prevailing national and local planning policy.

1.2 Application

The proposed planning application is for :-

‘Alterations and extension to the existing dwelling to form improved family

accommodation, separate garage and guest accommodation’.

1 Background



1.3 Aim and Context

This statement demonstrates how the design has been informed through a rigorous

process of assessment, evaluation and design and includes the following information:

• Information on the existing site and house.

• Planning policies and planning history of the site.

• Information on Permitted Development Rights.

• Pre-Application Advice

• Design brief and the design process.

• Design proposal, including the impact on use, appearance, access and ecology.

1.4 Stanton Andrews Architects

Charles Stanton and Neil Andrews established their architecture practice in late

2006. With projects across the north-west, Stanton Andrews have established a strong

reputation for producing high quality and imaginative designs to suit the needs, desires,

aspirationsandbudgetofitsclients.StantonAndrews’portfolioincludesnewmixeduse

developments, one off projects as well as urban regeneration residential schemes. Their

‘handson’approachtothedevelopmentoftheproposalsanddesignisatthecoreof

much of the details and designs produced.

Consistently, projects have demonstrated a focused and considered appraisal of the

existing arrangement, its site, and context; resulting in imaginative and elegant designs

tailored to the specifics of each commission. This, combined with a sensibility for

historical context and vernacular identities, has created a socially and environmentally

responsive architecture.

Stanton Andrews Architects have received a number of awards for their work, including

LABC awards in the catagories of “Best change of use of an existing building or

conversion” (2014) and “Best extension or alteration to an existing home” (2017) plus

other nominations and commendations.

s tanton andrews archi tects


73.00m

73.00m

74.00m

74.00m

1.5 Existing Site

• Existing gated entrance from Ribchester Road to west.

• Existing stone boundary wall to west (fronting Ribchester Road).

• Neighbouring property to south.

• Mature tree to east.

• Existing property appears to have been extended and subdivided, with little

consideration to function and/or appearance.

• Existing‘frontdoor’under-used.

• Small and under-used court to the south.

Existing areas:

Site 4,565 m2

House Ground floor 306 m2

First Floor 114 m2

Total 420 m2 (gross internal footprint)



2.1 Policy

Whilstthesiteisintheopencountryside,RVBC’slocalplanconfirmsthatthesiteisnot

within an AONB, green belt, nor covered by other specific environmental policies.

Planning policies ENV3 and G5 cover the site. However, it is debatable whether these

are directly applicable to the proposals.

TheproposalshavebeenmindfuloftheguidanceofferedinRVBC’spublished

supplementaryplanningguide,‘ExtensionsandAlterationstoDwellings’.

2.2 Planning History

It should be noted that the permitted development rights for the property have been

unaffected.

RVBC Planning reference: 3/2013/0359

‘Proposednew,gatedvehicleandpedestrianaccesstoAcornBarn,OakMountFarm,

RibchesterRoad,Clayton-le-Dale,Lancashire,BB19EY’.Approvedwithconditions


‘Proposedconversionofanexistingdwellingandattachedannexintotwoseparate

properties and erection of a single storey double garage at Oak Mount Farm, Ribchester

Road,Clayton-le-DaleLancashire’.Approvedwithconditions


‘Proposedalterationsandextensionsincludingtwostoreyextensionanddetechedgarage

blockwithtwobedroomgrannyannexabove’. Rejected.

See item no.2.4 below

2 Planning



Summary Single-storey extension An extension or addition to your house is considered to be permitted development, not re-quiring an application for planning permission, provided certain limits and conditions are met. 1. On designated land cladding of any part of the exterior of a dwelling (and extensions) with stone, artificial stone, pebble dash, r ender, timber, plastic or tiles is not permitted development. * Designated land includes national parks and the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, conservation areas and World Heritage Sites. 2. Extensions (including previous extensions) and other buildings must not exceed 50% of the total area of land around the original house.

The term ‘original house’ means the house as it was first built or as it stood on 1 July 1948 (if it was built before that date). Although you may not have built an extension to the house, a pre-vious owner may have done so.

* Sheds and other outbuildings must be included when calculating the above 50% limit. 3. Extensions forward of the principal elevation or side elevation of a house and fronting a highway are NOT permitted development. 4. On designated land side extensions are not permitted development.

On designated land and Sites of Special Scientific Interest the regime for larger single-storey rear extensions (see point 9) which runs until 30 May 2016 does NOT apply.

5. Materials used in exterior work to be similar in appearance to those of the exterior of the existing house. This condition does not apply when the extension is a conservatory. 6. Width of side extension must not have a width greater than half the width of the original house. 7. Side extensions to be single storey with a maximum height of four metres. 8. If extension is within two metres of a boundary maximum eaves height should be no higher than three metres to be permitted development. 9. Single storey rear extension must not

extend beyond the rear of the original house by more than 3m an attached house or by 4m if a detached house. In addition, outside designated land and Sites of Special Scientific Interest the limit is increased to 6m if an attached house and 8m if a detached house until 30 May 2016. These increased limits (between 3m and 6m and between 4m and 8m respectively) are subject to the neighbour consultation scheme.

10. Single storey rear extension must not exceed a height of four metres. 11. Maximum eaves and ridge height of extension no higher than existing house.

Class A The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling house.

© Crown Copyright 2013 This guide is sponsored by:

2.3 Permitted Development Rights

Permitteddevelopmentsrightsallowforextensionstothe‘original’dwellingwithout

requiring planning permission, provided that they comply with the following conditions:

Extensions:

• Restrictionsonuseofmaterialsondesignatedland.‘Designatedland’includes

national parks, AONB, conservation areas and world heritage sites.

• Extension must not exceed 50% of the total area of land around the building.

• Extension must not be forward of the principle elevation. (The principle elevation is

the one fronting the highway).

• No side extensions on designated land.

• Exterior materials similar in appearance to the original building.

• Width of the side must not exceed to be more that 1/2 the width of the original

property.

• Single storey side extensions to be max. 4m in height.

• Extensions within 2m of the boundary to have max. eaves height of 3m.

• Rear extensions must not be more than 4m deep for a detached property. (May be

increasedto8mfollowing‘neighbourconsultationscheme’).

• Rear extensions must not exceed a height of 4m.

• Max. eaves and ridge heights must be no higher than the existing house.

Outbuildings:

• Not permitted on designated land.

• Not permitted with grounds of listed buildings.

• If in National Parks, the Broads, AONB etc., must be more than 20m away from any

walls of the house, and not greater than 10m2.

• Not forward of the front elevation.

• Not more than 50% of the total area of land around the house.

• Must not contain a separate living accommodation.

• Max. 2.5m eaves height. Max. 4m overall height.

• Max. 2.5m overall height if within 2m of the boundary.

• No balconies and verandas. Raised platforms max. 300mm in height.

• Containers max. 3500 litres capacity.



2.4 Application Ref 3/2017/0082

The reason listed for the previous refusal was :-

‘The proposed extension and alterations are considered contrary to Policies DMG1 and

DMH5 of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy by virtue of their scale and design resulting

in the introduction an incongruous, discordant and unsympathetic addition that fails to

respond positively to the inherent character or proportioning of the existing building. It

is further considered that the extensions/alterations would result in the introduction of

an over dominant addition resulting in the visual detriment of the host property and the

character and visual amenities of the area’.

2.5 Pre-application AdviceFollowing the refusal of the previous application, a pre-application enquiry was submitted

to Ribble Valley planning department. On the 08/05/17 a meeting was held at the

Council offices attended by Austin Clews and Kathryn Baron (applicants), Stephen

Kilmartin (RVBC planning officer) and Neil Andrews (Architect).

Mr Kilmartin outlined the concerns with the previous scheme and a options were

discussed.

On the 09/05/2017, 23/05/2017 and 29/06/2017 sketch options were forwarded to

Mr Kilmartin for consideration. The current application reflects the comments received,

including:-

• The principle of the extension and outbuilding was generally agreed. There were no

concerns about the proposed areas, nor the proposed location.

• The annex building to be read as subservient to the original house, i.e. the ridge

height should be lower than the existing ridge height.

• The concept of splitting the building into 2no. single storey buildings - one for the

garageandoneforthe‘grannyannex’.

• Garage outbuilding to be positioned to the SW of the site, adjacent to the existing

boundary wall fronting Ribchester Road.

On the 20/07/17 Mr Kilmartin stated “No perceived issues at this end. I would advise

proceeding to submission”.sketch site plan prepared for pre-application discussion

LP

WV

LP

73.58

73.34

72.94

73.1773.37

73.4473.30

73.31

73.68

73.18

73.64

TARMAC

STONE SETTS

73.6

9

GRASS

74.6

774

.37

73.9

8

73.6

3

73.4

6

73.2

4

73.1

5

73.0

8

GRASS

74.0

5

74.4

6

74.7

3

74.54

74.61 74.63

74.86

74.86

74.9

3

74.3

7

74.1

273

.92

73.73

CHIPPINGS

GRASS

GRASS

73.6373.70

73.73

73.71

73.67

73.78

73.9474.06

STONE FLAGS

74.16

74.1174.15

73.9

5

73.8

6

73.81

73.75

73.76

73.8

2

73.9

4

74.2

1

74.64 74.64

GRASS

74.07

SOIL73.9474.01

73.86

TL74.30

CHIPPINGS

74.25

74.1874.21

74.33

74.33

CHIPPINGS

STONE SETTS

74.69 74.64

74.73

74.63

74.62

74.57

74.43

74.44

74.56

74.38

74.3

0

74.2274.16

74.28

74.44

74.1

1

73.9

5

73.85

73.68

73.63

73.95

74.16

72.9

8

73.2

0

73.5

2

73.73

73.91

74.10

74.16

74.24

EH81.81

RH85.54

RH79.45

EH77.54

TL74.69

72.67

72.91

73.08

72.99

73.01

73.2

6

74.53

74.44

74.46

74.66

74.47

STON

E FLAG

S

TL74.64

74.49

74.76

74.4

774

.64

74.67

TL74.65

STONE FLAGS

CHIPPINGS

FFL74.66

74.56

74.55

74.48

74.5

574

.66

74.68 74.65

74.56

TL74

.65

TL74.65 TL74.65

STONE FLAGS

74.4274.47

74.60

74.70 74.64 74.45

74.29

CO

NC

RETE FLAG

S

STONE FLAGS

Raised Bed

74.43

74.3

474

.24

74.2

3

74.25

74.31

74.34

74.36

74.45

74.46

EH77

.51

EH79

.69

EH81.45

RH83.45

RH81

.88

RH79

.89

GRASS

GRASS

72.88

74.25

74.32

74.3

1

74.21

73.00m

73.00m

74.00m

74.0

0m

Raised Bed

Oil Tank

Raised Bed

GRASS

CHIPPINGS

CHIPPINGS

GRASS

GU

GU

GU

GU

GUGU

GU

GU

GU

GU

GU

GU

GU

DK

Kerb

Kerb

Kerb

Wal

l

Wal

l

Wal

l

Wall

Wall

Post

& R

ail F

ence

Post

& R

ail F

ence

Post & Rail Fence

Post & Rail Fence

Decking

MHCL74.22

MHCL74.89

GU GU

Timber Fence

Timber Fence

CH79.50

RIBC

HES

TER

ROA

D

N

scale 0m 10m 20m

profile existing

Oak Tree

+74.49

+73.94

+74.30

+73.63

+72.96

+73.94

+74.48

'as existing' drawings based on information provided by others - no measured survey of the property has been undertaken by the architect.

this drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant consultants and specialists drawings. the architect is to be notified of any discrepancies before proceeding. do not scale from this drawing. all dimensions are to be checked on site. this drawing is subject to copyright.

A Issued for information June 2017

Acorn BarnRibchester Road

Proposed Plan Site Plan

1561 / 24

June 17TE1:200 @ A11:400 @ A3

A

date.

drg.no.

drawn.

stanton andrews architects

44 york streetclitheroeBB7 2DL

t 01200 444490e [email protected] stantonandrews.co.uk

rev.

scale.



3.1 Design Brief

The applicant has a large and extended family, and wishes for Acorn Barn to become the

family home. This includes alterations and an extension to the existing property to allow

for improved function and usability.

3.2 Design Process

The design proposal is the result of a detailed and iterative design process, during which

a number of options were explored.

Throughout the process of creating conceptual extensions and alterations, a series of

computer aided design and 3D modelling options were produced. These options were

created as a visual and interactive aid of the project in its context, whereby a preferred

option is produced.

The options provided a detailed analysis of the impact that the developments would

have on the area and its relationships to the surroundings, both from a spatial and visual

aspect. The proposal therefore aims to reflect and respond to the surrounding character

and environment.

Ground floor

First floor

3 Design

family room / kitchenutility

wc

snug

dressing

master bedroom

balcony

ensuite

bedroombathroom

bedroom

bedroom

ensuitebedroom

ensuite

lounge

study

cloaks

dog room

snuglobby



LP

WV

LP

73.58

73.34

73.1773.37

73.4473.30

73.31

73.68

73.18

73.64

TARMAC

STONE SETTS

73.6

9

GRASS

74.6

774

.37

73.9

8

73.6

3

73.4

6

73.2

4

73.1

5

73.0

8

GRASS

74.0

5

74.4

6

74.7

3

74.54

74.61 74.63

74.86

74.86

74.9

3

74.3

7

74.1

273

.92

73.73

CHIPPINGS

GRASS

GRASS

73.6373.70

73.73

73.71

73.67

73.78

73.9474.06

STONE FLAGS

74.16

74.1174.15

73.9

5

73.8

6

73.81

73.75

73.76

73.8

2

73.9

4

74.2

1

74.64 74.64

GRASS

74.07

SOIL73.9474.01

73.86

TL74.30

CHIPPINGS

74.25

74.1874.21

74.33

74.33

CHIPPINGS

STONE SETTS

74.69 74.64

74.73

74.63

74.62

74.57

74.43

74.44

74.56

74.38

74.3

0

74.2274.16

74.28

74.44

74.1

1

73.9

5

73.85

73.68

73.63

73.95

74.16

73.2

0

73.5

2

73.73

73.91

74.10

74.16

74.24

RH79.45

EH77.54

TL74.69

74.53

74.44

74.46

74.66

74.47

STON

E FLAG

S

TL74.64

74.49

74.76

74.4

774

.64

74.67

TL74.65

STONE FLAGS

CHIPPINGS

FFL74.66

74.56

74.55

74.48

74.5

574

.66

74.68 74.65

74.56

TL74

.65

TL74.65 TL74.65

STONE FLAGS

74.4274.47

74.60

74.70 74.64 74.45

74.29

CO

NC

RETE FLAG

S

STONE FLAGS

Raised Bed

74.43

74.3

474

.24

74.2

3

74.25

74.31

74.34

74.36

74.45

74.46

GRASS

GRASS

74.25

74.3274

.31

74.21

74.00m

74.0

0m

Raised Bed

Oil Tank

Raised Bed

GRASS

CHIPPINGS

CHIPPINGS

GRASS

GU

GU

GU

GU

GUGU

GU

GU

GU

GU

GU

GU

GU

DK

Kerb

Kerb

Kerb

Wal

l

Wal

l

Wall

Wall

Post

& R

ail F

ence

Post & Rail Fence

Post & Rail Fence

Decking

MHCL74.22

MHCL74.89

GU GU

CH79.50

RIBC

HES

TER

ROA

D

16.8

m

7.5m

7.5m

2.5m

19.0

m

7.5m

16.8

m

4.2m

3.3 Design Proposal

The proposals reflect the comments received during the pre-application discussions with

the planning officer, including reducing the size and height of the extension, reducing the

height of the granny annex, and positioning the garage to the west of the site.

The original part of the house is to be returned to its original layout. This involves the

removal of previous additions/alterations, and to provide ancillary living and bedroom

accommodations.

The ground floor extension provides an open plan family room, with a kitchen, dining

area and informal seating area, allowing the family to come together.

The first floor extension above accommodates the master bedroom suite and snug.

The garage and workshop space are required to be a suitable size for the applicant to

store and maintain his collection of vintage cars and motorbikes.

A‘grannyflat’isprovidedtowardsthenorthofthesite.Itisintendedthatthisgranny

flat is used in conjunction with the main house.

3.4 Design Proposal - Appearance

The proposals reflect the comments received during the pre-application discussions with

the planning officer, including rationalising some of the detailing and simplifying the

materials pallet.

The elevational treatment is unashamedly contemporary, whilst being respectful of the

existing property and neighbours. Walls are to be faced in natural and local stone with

render. The roof is finished in natural slate.

The sitting of the extension minimises the possible impact when viewed from Ribchester

Road. This extension replaces the existing collection of outbuildings, and is pulled

significantly further away from the existing oak tree and the southern boundary (and the

neighbouring property).

The east elevation of the extension and the granny flat open up to views across open

fields and the countryside.

kitchen/

family room

loungestudy

cloaks

dog room

wc

utility

dining

snug

Kitchen

bedbed

ensuites

terrace

utility store

garage

garage storeworkshop

lounge

lobby



3.5 Design Proposal - Access

The vehicular and pedestrian access to the site from Ribchester Road will remain

unchanged and unaffected.

The approach to the house when within the site is addressed, by establishing and defining

circulation routes, paths and driveways. Consequently, an approach to the front door is

created to help bring it back into everyday use.

3.6 Area Comparison

• House external footprint (gross):

Existing footprint 351 m2

Proposed footprint 356 m2

Equating to a 1% increase in area.

• House internal footprint (gross):

Existing Ground Floor 306 m2

First Floor 114 m2

Total 420 m2

Proposed Ground Floor 306 m2

First Floor 250 m2

Total 556 m2

Equating to a 32% increase in area.

Itisourunderstandingthatthe‘GrannyAnnex’maybeconstructedwithoutrequiring

planningpermissionundertheexistingproperty’spermitteddevelopmentrights(asnoted

previously).

ground floor

first floor

study

lounge

lobby

dog room snug

dining

kitchen / family room

utilitycloaks

bedroom

bedroom

bedroom bed

master bedroom

ensuite

snug

dressing

ensuite



3.7 Ecology

A bat survey has been carried out on the site, which found no evidence of bats within

the structure. It was concluded that the proposed building alterations and the demolition

of part of the existing structure are unlikely to cause significant disturbance to bats. As

a result of this, the work has been recommended to proceed without a requirement to

obtain a development licence (EPSL).

The proposed extension replaces the existing collection of outbuildings, and is pulled

significantly further away from the existing oak tree. The proposed design does not affect

the oak tree, and as a result must be considered an improvement.

The existing trees to the north of the site will be unaffected by the works.

4 Conclusion

It is the aspiration of the client to create a functional and usable family home that

appreciates the surroundings.

A design has been developed that responds to the site context, orientation and setting, as

well as a landscape to allow for better accessibility. The focus is on creating alterations

internally and externally that satisfy the requirements of the client.

The extension not only benefits the usability of the space, but is also externally beneficial

by being set further back from the oak tree and the neighbouring property; as a result

enhancing the ecological and visual value of the site.

Aerial view of the proposal




44 York Street, Clitheroe, BB7 2DL01200 [email protected]



Documents

stanton andrews architects - Ribble Valley · 2017. 8. 16. · supplementary planning guide, ‘Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings’. 2.2 Planning History It should be noted