Case studies after Planning Policy Statement 7 (2004)

Site: Coston, Leicestershire

Local Authority: Melton Borough Council Local Authority reference: 04/000/30/FUL

Appeal reference: APP/Y2430/V/04/1161775 Date of decision: 2006 (March)

Decision: No decision by Local Authority, called in by Secretary of State & consent granted

Source: Practice archives & Paul Bancroft Architects

Appendix: 12

Description:

The proposed Country House was in parkland that had once accommodated a stately hall. The hamlet of Coston is an isolated small collection of farms and dwellings. The Inspector was reporting to the Secretary of State. The Inspector isolated two main considerations in the case, namely the relationship of the proposals to the Development Plan and national policy and secondly whether the quality of the design justified construction of an isolated dwelling.

Analysis:

In practice the Inspector dealt with the debate slightly differently and dealt with three issues, namely impact upon the countryside, the policies and the PPS7 aspects of the particular scheme. It is interesting that the Secretary of State’s decision letter simplified matters by going to the policies first and then the PPS7 arguments. The latter format seems the most cogent.

108

CHAPTER 5

NEW COUNTRY HOUSES

Dealing first with the Development Plan location policy, the decision letter accepted the Inspector’s view that the proposal was contrary to Strategy Policy 8 of the Structure Plan and Policies OS2 and C8 of the Local Plan. Strategy Policy 8 is a Structure Plan Rural Policy. Continuing under the head Development Plan and sustainability, in terms of location the site was found to be remote and hence contrary to the plan in this case (see decision letter, para 10). However, still in the Development Plan some support was found in the Regional Spatial Strategy Policy 4 and Structure Plan policies relating to landscape character (see decision letter, para 14). However, overall the proposal was found to be conflicting with the Development Plan.

Therefore the scheme had to be assessed against the criteria of paragraph 11 of PPS7. Each key element in the list of criteria can be analysed:

 Exceptional quality – apparently not according to decision letter, para 18, but it does present high quality design. This view was contrary to the Inspector’s view stated very clearly at paras 131 and 133.

 Ground breaking and innovative nature – again it did not qualify. Paragraph 19 is somewhat difficult to understand in that the apparent failure of the property to be innovative arises from the use and character of local building materials. It has to be remembered that one of the objectives of new Country Houses is to show ‘sensitivity to the defining characteristics of the local area’

(see last clause of PPS7, para 11).

 Enhancement of the setting and sensitive definition of local characteristics – whilst this is one of the criteria in PPS7, para 11, the Secretary of State’s letter and the Inspector dealt with it more generally. The interesting feature of

109

this decision letter and the Inspector’s report is that the two differ considerably but both come to the same result but for different reasons.

The Inspector’s report at paragraphs 37 and 38 recorded the contemporary technology that was to be used:

 low energy whole house ventilation system involving air entering the building through triple glazed cavities detailed into the windows and exiting through tall chimney stacks,

 wood chip heating system fuel coming from the locality,

 solar water heating system,

 reclaimed construction materials,

 rainwater would be recycled

Conclusion:

The Inspector accepted that the degree of innovation and use of techniques qualified the PPS7, para 11 test but the Secretary of State did not accept the view. One important point was overlooked in the decision letter and this was the Inspector’s coherent argument at paragraph 126 that the coming together of materials and design had produced a scheme of great merit. Earlier in this paper the definition of good design referred to the relationship of function and form that achieves a lifting of the spirit. This is surely what was in the Inspector’s mind at paragraph 126 which justifies quoting:

‘It should be recognised that the degree of synthesis evident in the design of the house – particularly the interpretation of traditional forms of construction and modern building services requires a high level of skill and experience’ (Appendix 12).

110

CHAPTER 5

NEW COUNTRY HOUSES

This holistic concept seems to have been somewhat lost in the decision letter or possibly just bypassed.

Key determining factor(s): Restoration/relationship with historic parkland.

Site: Lowther, Penrith, Cumbria

Local Authority: Lake District National Park Authority Local Authority reference: 7/2004/3124

Appeal reference: APP/Q9495/A/05/1188213 Date of decision: 2006 (August)

Decision: Application refused. Appeal allowed

Source: Practice archives

Appendix: 13

Description:

The second case determined by the Secretary of State under PPS7 involved a new dwelling in open countryside in the Lake District National Park, South of Penrith. The scheme was described as Palladian in concept with Michelangelesque elements. Apparently the appellant contended that the proposal represents the first use of these elements fused with Palladian ideas in an English Country House. The National Parks Authority refused this scheme on grounds that the proposal was contrary to Structure Plan policies, in particular those preventing development outside larger villages and towns.

Analysis:

It is interesting that the Inspector at paragraph 33 found that the innovative techniques to be employed would meet the test of paragraph 11 of PPS7. These were rainwater harvesting and re-use, solar panels, ground source heat exchange system and use of sheep’s wool for insulation. Again the Inspector took a

111

holistic view of the project relating the materials to the design. The proposal involved the removal of incongruous buildings in the park.

Conclusion:

Overall the advantages of the project outweighed the disadvantages. The appeal was allowed.

Key determining factor(s): overall improvement of historic landscape and achieved the ground breaking standard/high quality design.

Three cases were granted without appeal or call-in.

Site: Fulford Farm, Culworth, Northants Local Authority: South Northamptonshire District Council Local Authority reference: S/2006/0720/P

Date of decision: 2006 (October)

Decision: Consent granted on application

Source: Practice archives and James Gorst Architect

Appendix: 14

Description:

The scheme involved the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new house of 1,433.7m² with an associated agricultural building of 1,216.8m². The scheme was considered as a PPS7 exception to policy rather than on the basis of the needs of the farm and replacement dwelling policy.

Analysis:

The very careful report to committee found that the use of local materials was innovative; para 6.10 of the report summarised the matter thus:

112

CHAPTER 5

NEW COUNTRY HOUSES

‘the use of local stone, bronze panelling and sedum roofing is an innovative approach, with regard to issues of sustainability as well as complementing and referring to the usual form of development within this part of the district.’

The report goes on to state that the project was based in technological innovation and results in buildings that are self-sufficient and carbon neutral. The site is within a Special Landscape Area and the landscape treatment was particularly commended in the report. An independent review was undertaken by a well respected architect who joined with CABE in rightly commending the project.

Conclusion:

It is interesting that the identity of the architect as both well known and well respected in the profession finds mention. Just as with the successful PPG7 cases the design is seen as holistic both in the arrangements of spaces and the relationship of the form to the environment and landscape.

Key determining factor(s): Outstanding design & outstanding Architect.

Site: Barton Farm, Ashby-cum-Fenby near Grimsby Local Authority: North-East Lincolnshire

Local Authority reference: DC/1282/05/WAB Date of decision: 2006 (March)

Decision: Consent granted on application

Source: Practice archives & Feilden Clegg Bradley

Appendix: 15

113 Description:

This scheme involves the demolition of a derelict farmhouse and replacement by a large country house. The site is just outside a small village of Ashby-cum-Fenby. Again this scheme was put forward as an exception to the policy on the basis of PPS7, para 11. Whilst the site is not in the village one can see the nearby settlement from the site. As the report explains (Appendix 15), the project involves the creation of a large lake and additional tree planting.

Analysis:

The Officer’s report to committee once again highlighted the standing of the architectural practice involved. The scheme involved provision of 50% of the energy needs of the property from renewable sources. The whole scheme had been carefully planned to enhance the linearity of the landscape. (See Figure 3)

Conclusion:

This result shows the importance of local views and careful collaboration with the local authority leading to a mutual understanding between applicants and authority. Again the identity of the architectural practice is key.

Key determining factor(s): outstanding design and identity of architect.

114

Figure 3 Ashby-cum-Fenby (Source: Feilden Clegg Bradley)

115

Site: Merriam’s Farm, Leeds, near Maidstone Local Authority: Maidstone Borough Council

Local Authority reference: MA/06/0700 Date of decision: 2006 (April)

Decision: Consent granted on application

Source: Practice archives & Maidstone Borough Council

Appendix: 16

Description:

The scheme involved the demolition of chicken sheds and erection of a new house in a very contemporary form. The location was below a key ridge line but outside any settlement in open countryside.

Analysis:

The project involved a variety of sustainable elements, namely rammed earth construction, wind power generation and a wood fired pellet boiler. From knowledge of the area and the scheme the degree of local character and use of materials was not as much in evidence on this project as on the other two analysed. However this project involved landscape improvements and a close integration with the landscape design.

Conclusion:

This was a scheme worked up in close collaboration with the planning authority and the support of Cabe was given to good if not very well known architect.

Key determining factor(s): Outstanding design, site enhancement and very sustainable.

116

CHAPTER 5

NEW COUNTRY HOUSES

Site: Ravenstonedale, South of Kirby Stephen, Lake District

Local Authority: Eden District Council Local Authority reference: 03/1154

Appeal reference: PP/H0928/A/04/1153298 Date of decision: 2005 (January)

Decision: Application refused. Appeal dismissed.

Source: Practice archives

Appendix: 17

Description:

More cases were dismissed on appeal than allowed. From the Compass Bureau analysis most were presented at a modest level, and determined by written representations. One such involved a scheme at Ravenstonedale in the Eden District Council area. The location is described as an isolated area on the edge of rising moorland.

Analysis:

The decision took the usual form of analysis of policy first and then considering the relevance of PPS7. However, the Inspector almost guided the appellant to the sort of scheme that could meet the standards of PPS7: at para 11 of the decision letter he states inter alia:

‘One would expect the architecture of a small landed estate to reflect polite national rather than local vernacular traditions. It, nevertheless, would utilise sympathetic local materials and incorporate modern, sustainable technology, including solar panels at low level on the garden front and the use of recycled rainwater’.

117 Conclusion:

The case was dismissed, the scheme failing to represent exceptional quality and innovative design. The dismissal is important in showing the negative mirror image to the positive cases. It failed on the criteria that are emerging as key.

Key determining factor(s): failure to meet highest contemporary design standards.

Site: Hurstbourne Priors, Hampshire

Local Authority: Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council Local Authority reference: BDB/59225

Appeal reference: APP/H1705/V/04/1170642 Date of decision: 2006 (May)

Decision: Local Authority did not make a decision

Application called in and rejected by Secretary of State

Source: Compass Bureau discussions with architect

Appendix: 18

Description:

The site lies at the end of a downland ridge between the River Test and the Bourne Rivulet. The nearest village is about 0.5km away. The proposal was for a new Country House in a former chalk quarry and within Hurstbourne Park which is listed Grade II in the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Interest: the site is within a protected environment and the whole area is one of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal was for a four storey house with south facing living areas mainly in glass.

Analysis:

The Council supported the scheme, but it was ‘called in’ by the Secretary of State. The main reason being that further information was needed on the extent

118

CHAPTER 5

NEW COUNTRY HOUSES

to which it was consistent with ‘national policies on important matters’. The key issues included consistency with the general policies of PPS7 and the impact on the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Appendix 18).

The proposal was opposed by the Hurstbourne Park and Testbourne Estates who instructed two Barristers and seven expert witnesses. The Inquiry lasted for eleven days, the decision letter and Inspector’s report raised questions worth longer examination than most cases. This is undertaken by comparing the points upon which the Secretary of State had indicated a wish to be informed and the conclusions of the Inspector. The author was not involved in the case but has discussed it with the architect involved.

The first matter upon which the Secretary of State wished to be informed was the extent to which the proposed development accords with the Development Plan for the area including regional planning guidance. Many of the relevant policies seek to direct development to sustainable locations with services and good public transport. Also considered under this head were matters relating to the preservation of nearby Grade II* listed buildings. It is not surprising that a Country House will be away from public transport. Similarly it is unsurprising that a new Country House will not further the aims of the landscape objectives of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty although the existing Country House in the vicinity and associated buildings were accepted and protected.

Of greater note is the treatment of the proposal against the key principles of PPS7. By virtue of the nature of a Country House it seems wrong to review the application on a box ticking basis applying these general principles. The Secretary of State’s ‘call in’ letter asked to be informed of the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the Key Principles in paragraphs 1(i)-(vi) of PPS7. However, in the decision letter the Secretary of State conceded that

119

‘the Secretary of State considers that it is appropriate to consider the relevance of each Key Principle to the proposal under consideration. In this case, the Secretary of State recognises that, as the proposal is clearly an isolated dwelling in the Countryside, it should be considered in the first place against the Key Principles 1(v) and 1(vi) and the exceptions provided in paragraphs 10 and 11 of PPS7’.

One wonders why the Inquiry was set up to review all six of the principles when at the conclusion only two were reviewed.

The terms of the Inspector’s review of these Key Principles (whether they be relevant or irrelevant) give an insight into the outlook of the Inspector. For example, Key Principle (i) refers to decisions being based on sustainable development principles. The Inspector concludes: ‘The proposal does not seek to reduce social inequalities or address accessibility for all members of the community to jobs, housing and other facilities’. It is unlikely that any new Country House will achieve these aims: this issue has not been brought up in other cases. Elsewhere in this section the Inspector argues that the proposal was exclusive and therefore contrary to the aims of PPS7. This approach is not found in the two cases that were allowed after ‘call in’ or on appeal. Other parts of the decision letter are more comprehensible. In terms of design, the Inspector found against the proposal on grounds that the modern sustainable elements such as the photo voltaic cells were not well integrated into the overall design; indeed the scheme involved their location in the gardens. The scheme design was found not to respond as a holistic whole.

120

CHAPTER 5

NEW COUNTRY HOUSES

Conclusion:

The proposal was dismissed and the Appellant faced costs for the expenses incurred by the objectors. This proposal was supported by the local Planning Authority but was rejected by the Secretary of State, and the Inspector’s report seems to go beyond what could be anticipated surprisingly indicating a degree of bias. It is inappropriate for the decision branch to so extend the terms of reference for an Inquiry and then from the same section of the Inspectorate or Department of Communities and Government disregard the very matters initially raised. Of all the decisions considered this case seems to be the most difficult to understand.

Key determining factor(s): Design not innovative nor relating well to landscape.

Site: Burley Hill, Hampshire

Local Authority: New Forest District Council Local Authority reference: 85643

Appeal reference: APP/B9506/A/06/2010924 Date of decision: 2007 (July)

Decision: Application refused. Appeal dismissed.

Source: Practice archives

Appendix: 19

Description:

This proposal by a University Professor of Engineering sought to apply sustainability principles to the construction of a new Country House at Burley Hill in the New Forest. The site was on the edge of a village. Computer generated (Figure 4) illustrates the proposals. As the practice was involved for most of the case background information is available hence a slightly longer entry for this case. The house was to be constructed of timber, sourced from the New Forest, and is contemporary in design, relating gracefully to the Lakeside

121

setting. The location is isolated in that only three properties can be seen from the site but it could not be described as remote as local services are available in Burley. The proposal was supported by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), but refused by the New Forest District Council, (since their New Forest became a National Park, and the National Park Authority defended the original decision). The reasons for refusal can be summarised:

 the scheme is not particularly innovative,

 it is contrary to the New Forest Policies that prevent all development outside a few defined settlements and Burley Hill is not one of these defined and accepted settlements,

 the Conservation Area would be harmed,

 ecology and trees would be damaged by the scheme (See Appendix 14)

The arguments advanced to show the house is ground breaking in design terms can be summarised under four headings:

 Bioregionality

 Construction Ecology

 Design for Deconstruction

 Building Biology

122

CHAPTER 5

NEW COUNTRY HOUSES

Figure 4 Burley Hill

The Bioregional approach takes account of local environmental, economic and social factors. The proposal at the House by the Lake used local materials (particularly New Forest oak) which is given added cultural and economic value by being felled and processed locally in the New Forest. Thus local identity is fostered and energy used in the production process is minimised. Similarly Cob Walling is another traditional construction process used in the New Forest. The site for the House by the Lake has a rich supply of blue and brown clay and reed

The Bioregional approach takes account of local environmental, economic and social factors. The proposal at the House by the Lake used local materials (particularly New Forest oak) which is given added cultural and economic value by being felled and processed locally in the New Forest. Thus local identity is fostered and energy used in the production process is minimised. Similarly Cob Walling is another traditional construction process used in the New Forest. The site for the House by the Lake has a rich supply of blue and brown clay and reed

In document Consistency in planning decisions for housing proposals in England (Page 119-140)