|
7. By moving the building from its context much of its historical value and significance in those terms is lost. As accepted by Mr Kelsall, the historic significance of Sandown Hall is partly derived from the fact that Hugh Hornby lived there and that he was a prominent figure in Liverpool, being the Mayor from 1838-39 and the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Council. Indeed, Mr Kelsall told us that a library in Liverpool has been named after him. The history of the building has no such links to Macclesfield or Manchester.
8. In more recent times (from 1920 to 1990), much of the building's significance was its value in the local scene as the sports and social club for Crawfords Biscuits company. Mr Kelsall told us that the company employed around 5000 local people and it is clear that the memory of that era is cherished by the local people of Wavertree (see Appendix, Mike Chitty). However, again no such memories exist in Nether Alderley.
9. Furthermore, whilst there are some similarities between the original location in Wavertree and the proposed location, there is an important difference: in its new location the building will have a very different relationship with the city of Manchester than it had in its original location with the city of Liverpool. It is important to note that the building was located only 5km from the centre of Liverpool whereas it would be 20-25km from the centre of Manchester.
10. As for the value of the architecture and design. It is accepted that this building was of a high standard of design and had architectural merit. Nevertheless, that is insufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Whilst there is a policy exception for isolated buildings of outstanding design in the countryside, that exception does not apply to this proposal. PPS 7, para 11 applies to designs of an "innovative" and ground breaking nature. A proposal within the exception should reflect the highest standards of contemporary architecture so as to help raise standards of design more generally in rural areas. The proposed building's architecture is patently historic and not contemporary. It does not set an example of good design for other rural housing to emulate (as to which see below).
11. The Traditional Architecture Group sought to persuade the ODPM to state unambiguously, whether the use of the words "contemporary" and "ground-breaking" in para 11 are intended to exclude traditional architecture. No such statement was forthcoming. The ODPM simply stated that there was no intention to impose or dictate a particular style preference. The interpretation put on that statement by the Traditional Architecture Group expands beyond what the ODPM said and is clearly not in itself a statement of government policy.
12. What is clear is that the words "ground-breaking", "innovative" and "contemporary" were inserted in PPS7 where they were not present in PPG 7. The letter from the Traditional Architecture Group dated 12 July 2004 was at pains to point out that the adjectives specifically exclude traditional architecture because they mean to "deliberately make something look different from what has gone before" and "of our time". Notwithstanding that letter, the ODPM did not seek to remove any of the words from the policy wording before it was adopted in final form in August of this year.
|
|