|
2.12 That said, as noted above, it is firmly submitted that even if the proposal was not thought to fall within paragraph 11 of PPS7 then nonetheless the circumstances which lead to the existence of very special circumstances also amount to 'special justification' for an isolated house in the open countryside.
2.13 Indeed it is assumed that the same policy approach was considered in relation Hill House and Hanson House, neither of which were said to be required to fall within para 3.21 of PPG7 to be justified.
Green Belt
2.14 It has always been accepted that the proposed development comprises inappropriate development in the green belt. Self evidently if very special circumstances are demonstrated then permission ought to be granted notwithstanding that the development is otherwise inappropriate.
2.15 It is accepted that harm is caused by the mere fact that what is proposed is inappropriate. However it is nonetheless important to assess what the actual impact upon the openness of the green belt will be. In so doing one must consider the proposal as a whole and not simply concentrate upon the most intrusive elements - i.e. the built development.
2.16 What is proposed amounts to an extensive scheme of landscape improvements which will result in a significant enhancement to the landscape, to nature conservation interests as well as providing an appropriate setting for the Hall.
2.17 Thus whilst inappropriate built development will indeed result it will be set in a seriously improved landscape which will go a considerable way to mitigating the impact of the proposal on the openness of the green belt. Indeed it is interesting to note that of the objectives of green belt almost all are met by this proposal.
3. The Benefits of the Proposed Development
3.1 Mr Malcolm accepts that the 'heritage benefits' of the proposed development comprise powerful material considerations. Indeed it has always been the Local Planning Authority's case that the highly unusual circumstances of this case 'could' amount to very special circumstances.
3.2 Mr Malcolm described those benefits as 'obvious' at one point during cross-examination, with respect he is entirely right to do so. The principle of resurrecting the spirit of Sandown Hall from its palletised resting place is one that is widely welcomed seemingly by almost all of those who have made comment on this application.
3.3 Similarly, if the Appellant's evidence is accepted that there is no evidential basis to conclude that in the event of the appeal being dismissed that another site would be promoted elsewhere in the UK by another fairy godmother, then it is material that those 'in principle' benefits would be lost. In other words this is not an appeal where the effect will be that the developer will simply transfer his/her project to another site elsewhere in the UK.
3.4 Indeed on the evidence there is a realistic prospect that the remnants of Sandown Hall will be lost to the nation entirely.
|
|