|
Overlapping Policy
2.4 That leaves the issues of countryside policy and green belt policy. The Local Planning Authority sought initially to contend that the latter was the principal policy consideration seemingly to the exclusion of countryside policy. With respect that is misconceived given the advice in para 3.1 of PPG2 which provides that green belt provides an additional tier of policy protection and not a replacement policy for those parts of the countryside which lie within it. Accordingly it is simply wrong to suggest that paragraphs 9 to 11 of PPS7 have no application within the green belt. As Mr Malcolm eventually accepted a proposal for an isolated house in the green belt would have to surmount the policy requirements of both PPS7 and PPG2 in order to comply with national guidance.
National Countryside Policy
2.5 The Local Planning Authority had never sought to maintain that there was a contravention of PPG7. Indeed it is clear from both the consultation response of the conservation officer, the report to committee and the reasons for refusal that the Local Planning Authority accepted that the proposed development met the test of para 3.21 of PPG7.
2.6 However it does now appear to contend that there is a tension between the proposal and national guidance in PPS7. That said, when asked whether permission ought to be granted if the proposal was not in an area designated as green belt Mr Malcolm appeared far from convinced that any tension would be sufficient in itself to warrant refusal.
2.7 Properly interpreted that stance is unsurprising. The guidance in PPS7 establishes a restrictive policy context for isolated dwellings in the open countryside, however it also accepts that if a 'special justification' can be demonstrated then such a dwelling would not be objectionable (para 10).
2.8 Thus were the Inspector to conclude that the proposal did not fall within the precise terms of paragraph 11 of PPS7 but that the circumstances of the case amounted to a 'special justification' then the grant of permission would be consistent with national guidance in PPS7.
2.9 However, properly interpreted, the Appellants proposals do indeed fall within the terms of para 11 of PPS7. Firstly in terms of the design it appears to have always been accepted by the Local Planning Authority that the 'design' of the building is exceptional and 'outstanding'. Secondly the proposed development is self evidently both innovative and ground breaking in its design - because what is proposed is the re-use of the 'potent architectural DNA' to create a building which recreates the spirit of the original building, which was itself of national importance1.
2.10 The Local Planning Authority still appear to be wedded to the concept that the last sentence of paragraph 11 means that only 'non-traditional' architecture is envisaged by the guidance. Such an interpretation may have been understandable (albeit incorrect) prior to yesterday, however it is untenable in the light of the exchange of letters between ODPM and TAG.
2.11 If the proposal falls within the first two sentences, and the best of contemporary skills are deployed in the creation of the building and its setting then it does not matter if the resultant preferred style is 'traditional' rather than 'modern'.
|
|