|
APPEAL BY MR D STAGG AGAINST THE REFUSAL BY MACCLESFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A FORMER GRADE II LISTED VILLA, OUTBUILDINGS, ACCESS AND LANDSCAPING ON LAND AT BOLLINGTON LANE, NETHER ALDERLEY, MACCLESFIELD
CLOSING SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL
1. As I said in opening, the starting point in the consideration of the proposal should be PPG 2. It is common ground that this proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Harm would be caused by reason of that inappropriateness (3.2, PPG2).
2. In addition, there would be material harm caused by the reduction in openness ("the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to keep land permanently open," PPG2, para 1.4) resulting from the erection of a large house, substantial outbuildings and a summer house and walled garden on open land. This would also represent an encroachment of built development into the countryside which is contrary to the purposes of Green Belt policy and, therefore, of itself also harmful (PPG2, para 1.5 and 1.7). This is not a case where there is a slight reduction in openness resulting from a change of use or minor development; here there will be substantial buildings and other structures eroding the openness of the land.
3. It is common ground that it is for the appellant to show that there are very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development (SoCG, p. 11, PPG 2, para 3.2). The appellant must show that the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations (my emphasis) and in striking the balance the Inspector is to attach "substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt" (para 3.2, PPG 2).
4. The special circumstances put forward by the appellant can be summarised as follows:-
· The benefit resulting from the reconstruction of a formerly listed, historic building which was recognised for both its architectural quality and historic significance;
· Some landscape and ecological enhancement resulting from the proposal;
· Slight traffic reduction and some visibility improvement to a junction.
5. I shall take the "peripheral" benefits first. By that I mean the issues of landscape, ecology, traffic/highways. The weight to be attached to those considerations when assessing special circumstances in the Green Belt context should be minimal for the following reasons:
· There is no identified need for the improvements;
· The purposes of the Green Belt are of paramount importance and should take precedence over land use objectives (para 1.7, PPG2)
· The quality of the landscape is not relevant to the inclusion of land within the Green Belt or to its continued protection (para 1.7, PPG 2)
· Similarly the objective of securing nature conservation interest on the site is not material to the continued protection of the Green Belt (para 1.7,PPG 2).
6. Looking at the main consideration put forward (the reconstruction of a former listed building of historical and architectural significance), it is common ground that the building is no longer listed (SoCG, p. 11). There is no policy support for this type of venture. Whilst historical interest and cultural heritage are of course valued and are material planning considerations, the main value to be attached to those considerations in policy terms comes from their contribution to "enhancing the familiar and cherished local scene" and to "sustaining the sense of local distinctiveness which is so important" (PPG 15, para 1; PPG 1, para 32).
|
|