|
13. The words have clearly been inserted in the policy for a reason. In the Council's submission they are there to justify the retention of the "Gummer clause" in the revised policy (the original intention had been to remove the exception altogether). It can be seen from the extract from Hansard that the Minister's main concern is to "drive up the design standards of all housing in rural areas, not just that of big private houses." However he recognises that "innovative, cutting-edge design can sometimes be helped along by private commissions. In that way, higher risk design solutions can be trialled and proven before being taken up more widely." Earlier in his speech, the Minister says "rural areas, as well as their urban counterparts, should benefit from high-quality design, including the best of contemporary British architecture". Read in this context, it is clear that the purpose of the inclusion of words such as 'contemporary', 'ground-breaking' and 'innovative' in the policy is to enable new and differnt designs to be trail blazed and trialled in order to encourage and inspire the design of more modest rural housing to adopt new methods and ideas.
14. This proposal does not come within the wording or the underlying purpose of paragraph 11 of PPS 7. The reconstruction of an historic building almost by definition cannot be ground breaking (particularly given that such buildings have been reconstructed before). Furthermore, it has no function in trail blazing or trialling new designs that could be adopted more widely. If it did so, it would be to encourage a pastiche of a traditional style, a trend which would not be welcomed (see Hansard extract).
15. It should further be pointed out that even if the Inspector finds, contrary to the Council's case, that this proposal does fall within PPS 7 that is insufficient to justify development in the Green Belt. The exception in PPS 7 amounts to an exception to the restrictive policy on new housing in the countryside but it does not follow that it is also sufficient to justify development in the Green Belt, an area to which even more restrictive policies apply. For development to be justified in this location, it is submitted that some further justification over and above any exception that may exist in PPS 7 must be found.
16. Finally, on the issue of Green Belt, it has not been proven that the suggested benefits of the proposal could not be achieved elsewhere in a non Green Belt location. The search for sites has been limited by the preferences of the appellant. However, the personal preferences of the appellant are not a material consideration. It may be that a non Green Belt location for the reconstruction could be found elsewhere in the country.
17. In summary and conclusion on Green Belt policy:-
· Significant harm will be caused
· That harm is not outweighed by the considerations put forward
i. The "peripheral benefits" are of little weight, especially in the Green Belt context (1.7, PPG2)
ii. The benefits in terms of heritage and design are also of little weight in policy terms:
1. there is no policy support for this type of undertaking - the aspect of heritage to which policy attaches value and significance is local context which is not present here;
2. the aspect of design to which policy attaches weight when considering isolated new houses is its ground-breaking and contemporary nature and its ability to trail blaze and set an example - neither of those qualities are present here.
|
|