|
P.I. REF: APP/C0630/A/04/1143448
LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY REF: 03/3190P
APPEAL BY MR D STAGG AGAINST THE REFUSAL OF 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 APPELLANT
1. Introductory Matters
1.1 The proposal to re-erect the architecturally most important parts of Sandown Hall a highly unusual project which has arisen out of a fortunate conjugation of circumstances. Firstly the s.106 agreement required the developer of the Wavertree site to donate the architecturally most sensitive parts of the Hall to Liverpool City Council with the aim of creating a monument. Secondly the resultant 'votive column' suffered from such vandalism that it was decided to dismantle the same. Thirdly Mr Griffiths had attended on site to buy salvaged materials from the demolition contractors but instead had the foresight to realise that the most important three façades could be salvaged so as to enable them to be re-built. Fourthly Mr Griffiths knew of Mr Stagg and his unsuccessful aspiration to secure a large home for his family in the Macclesfield area. Fifthly Mr Stagg had both the vision and the wherewithal to be able to bring such a project to fruition. Sixthly land and house values in the area in which Mr Stagg aspires to live are such as to make this project viable.
1.2 Perhaps most fortunately for the future of Sandown Hall it has Mr Stagg for a Fairy Godmother - i.e. not only is he seeking to finance the project but he has also had the persistence to pursue and promote the scheme. Were the appeal to be dismissed then it seems unlikely that the Hall will attract another Fairy Godparent.
2. Policy
2.1 It is now clear why the Local Planning Authority agreed that the principal issue in this case was that set out at para 1.3 of the SPG - it does not maintain that permission ought to be withheld for any other reason.
Supplementary Planning Guidance
2.2 Firstly the proposal may indeed contravene the SPG, however realistically Mr Malcolm accepts that if very special circumstances are demonstrated then it would be 'unrealistic' to suggest that breach of the SPG would comprise a reason to withhold consent. Added to that is the fact that the SPG was prepared to take account of the draft version of PPS7 which did not include the 'Gummer clause' in any form. Mr Malcolm does not think that it has been reconsidered by the Local Planning Authority since the final version of PPS7 was published - at the least therefore the SPG will need to take into account where a proposal that meets paragraph 11 of PPS7 should be permitted as an exception. Furthermore, given the broad interpretation of enabling development at para 3.2 of the SPG conceivable a project which both met the PPS7 test of 'special justification' as well as comprising very special circumstances may very well fall within the exception provided by the paragraph in the SPG.
2.3 Perhaps of most importance it is inconceivable that the granting of consent for a project of this type would have any effect upon the urban renaissance of the North West Metropolitan Areas which is the rationale of the paragraph quoted by Mr Malcolm (para 5.37 of RPG13).
|
|