|
23. The appellant readily acknowledges his desire to remain in the Macclesfield area. Consequently the area of search for an appropriate site for the reconstruction of Sandown Hall has focussed on this locale. The appellant contends that because Alderley Edge has some of the highest land values in Cheshire, it is only here that the proposed development would be viable, with the end value being at the very least equal to the total cost. Whilst within the Macclesfield area this might be so, I am not convinced that a suitable site could not be found elsewhere within the north of England or even the United Kingdom - one which would not be at odds with long established principles and guidance regarding development in the Green Belt.
24. Reference has been made to the proximity of 'Yarwoods' and other dwellings to the west of the appeal site. Notwithstanding any interpretation of the design emphasis of paragraph 11 of PPS7, in such circumstances the appeal proposal would not accord with the 'isolated new house' criteria included within this paragraph.
25. For these reasons I am of the opinion that there are no very special circumstances to justify the appeal proposal. As such, it would fail to accord with the main thrust and/or relevant criteria of Structure Plan Policy GEN2, Local Plan Policies GC1, and guidance within PPG2 and PPS7. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the fact that the proposed landscape works would undoubtedly visually enhance the site, and afford associated ecological benefits. However, such a situation does not outweigh the fundamental inappropriateness of the scheme before me.
The second issue
26. As stated, there are already residential properties to the west of the appeal site. Consequently, the proposed re-erection of Sandown Hall, together with substantial outbuildings and a walled garden, would extend development along the northern boundary of Bollington Lane. Such a situation would intrude upon, and be harmful to, the present openness of the Green Belt and would not accord with the main thrust and/or relevant criteria of Structure Plan Policy GEN3 and Local Policies GC3 and DC1.
The third issue
27. With regard to housing provision. Structure Plan Policy HOU1 requires that there are sufficient housing sites within Macclesfield Borough to accommodate 4,500 dwellings (+/- 50) within the period 2002-2016. Such a requirement is echoed in Local Plan Policy H1. However, because this allocation is rapidly being exhausted, the Council has adopted SPG which seeks to restrict the supply of new housing. Whilst there are a number of exceptions categories within the SPG, none directly relates to the circumstances of the appeal proposal. However, the Council has conceded that should the present scheme satisfy criteria relating to development in the Green Belt, then these would outweigh any conflict with the SPG.
28. As recorded above, no such justification exists. Consequently, an additional new dwelling would be in breach of the SPG, and would cumulatively add to the over supply of housing within the Borough. This would be contrary to the aims of Structure Plan Policy HOU1, Local Plan Policy H1, and the aforementioned SPG - Restricting the Supply of New Housing.
|
|