Case studies 1997 – 2004

Site: Great Canfield, Essex

Local Authority: Uttlesford District Council Local Authority reference: UTT/1592/98/FUL

Appeal reference: APP/C1570/A/00/1035304 Date of decision: 2000 (July)

Decision: Application not determined. Appeal allowed.

Source: Practice archives

Appendix: 8

98

CHAPTER 5

NEW COUNTRY HOUSES

Description:

The scheme proposed the demolition of an existing house and associated buildings on an appeal site of 47 acres. The main characteristic of the locality were smaller houses set in the countryside.

The Inspector identified three main issues in the case:

 whether the proposal would harm the rural character contrary to development plan policies

 whether the proposal conforms to the advice on country houses then set out in paragraph 3.21 of PPG7 which explains the exceptional circumstances in which a new house can be justified;

 if so, the extent, if any, to which that could outweigh any harm identified in the first issue.

(see Appendix 8, paragraph 9)

Analysis:

The scheme was found to comply with some policy elements of the Development Plan, in particular policy H8 of the Local Plan. This policy envisaged replacement houses in the countryside and the scheme proposed just this.

However, policy H8 required interpretation as to compatible scale. One interesting aspect of the policy debate related to the proximity to the nearest dwelling, Water Hall at 338 metres. On the first issue the Inspector found that there would be impact upon the area but it would not necessarily cause harm.

The harm or otherwise would be related to the quality of the proposal.

Turning to the second issue, the identity of the architect receives specific mention at paragraph 27 which includes the following ‘it must be accepted that the appellants’ architect is a leading exponent of classical architecture, who has

99

designed and built many distinguished buildings, including country houses’.

However, the scheme is then carefully analysed against each requirement of PPG7 paragraph 3.21.

Conclusion:

The Inspector found that although the scheme would bring change to the area this change would not be harmful and the new dwelling met the tests of the PPG.

The scheme conformed to a local policy and was represented by a leading architect.

Key determining factor(s): conform to both local plan policy and PPG7, outstanding architect.

Site: Kings Somborne, Hampshire

Local Authority: Test Valley Local Authority reference: TVS.08293/1

Appeal reference: APP/C1760/A/00/1048547 Date of decision: 2001 (January)

Decision: Application refused. Appeal allowed.

Source: Practice archives

Appendix: 9

Description:

This case involved a new Country House of 11 bedrooms, two flats and swimming pool near the Hampshire village of Kings Somborne. The parties accepted that the proposal would not meet Structure Plan policies so it had to be justified under the exceptions policy of PPG7.

100

CHAPTER 5

NEW COUNTRY HOUSES

Analysis:

The decision allowing the appeal starts with a careful analysis of what is justifiably viewed as outstanding in design terms. The Inspector’s comments on this are useful. He relates the ideas to basic architectural concepts of form, space, scale and context Appendix 9, paragraph 8). The next phase is illuminating in that he moves to reject the requirement to create a totally new landscape in favour of reflecting the existing qualities of the countryside.

In paragraph 10 the Inspector very carefully justifies the view that the house is outstanding:

 first he refers to the particular architect and states: ‘it has evolved as a design under the direction of a skilled architect with a national reputation for an innovative approach to the classical tradition …….’;

 the design is based upon sound principles of composition, proportion, space and style which he considers will be attractive and enduring;

 the principles are carried through to the room designs;

 the principles flow into the detailed designs of the elevations;

 the landscaping complements the house

 The property will be seen apparently but only from a few places and fits in with the landscape.

101 Conclusion:

This decision shows how factors some would think extraneous to the planning process may have influence. The Inspector was encouraged by the identity of the architect (although normally in planning decisions personal factors are not excluded). However in practice this is unreal and the standing of the professionals involved becomes a consideration. The debate about the criteria for the design to be viewed as outstanding shows how subjective the issue is. It might be possible to assist applicants by the inclusion in policy of some of the tests used by the Inspector.

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

Site: St Johns House, Ramsden, Oxfordshire Local Authority: West Oxfordshire District Council Local Authority reference: W2003/0978

Appeal reference: APP/D3125/A/03/1129739 Date of decision: 2004 (July)

Decision: Application refused. Appeal allowed.

Source: Practice archives

Appendix: 10

Description:

The Appellants intended a new Country House in an isolated 59 acre rural setting near Witney, Oxfordshire. The site lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and High Landscape Value.

Analysis:

A classical approach was accepted as outstanding. One interesting point of this decision is that the fact (recorded in para 46 of the decision) that the house will be visible is not regarded as an adverse point. Indeed the new St John’s House

102

CHAPTER 5

NEW COUNTRY HOUSES

would be evident from a ‘broad zone of visual influence’. This area of visibility, all within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, was noted to form an arc of 3.5 kilometres. However the fact that the property would be seen ‘from a number of viewpoints’ was not a problem (see para 50). As the Inspector remarked in the subsequent paragraph, several Country Houses in Oxfordshire are visible and Blenheim Palace itself is hardly hidden away.

Conclusion:

Again the presence of a well known architect at the Inquiry was a relevant factor in the assessment and Mr Adam’s assessment of the proposal is recorded in full.

The identity of the professional team is a factor in the debate.

Key determining factor(s): Outstanding design

Site: Witley Park, Thursley, Surrey Local Authority: Waverley Borough Council Local Authority reference: WA/03/0399

Appeal reference: APP/R3650/V/03/1128039 Date of decision: 2004 (July)

Decision: No decision by Authority, called in by Secretary of State

Source: Practice archives

Appendix: 11

Description:

The site involved 484 acres of mature landscaped grounds surrounded by an estate wall. The previous house was destroyed by fire in 1953. Some of the original lakes and outbuildings are listed. This case was called in by the Secretary of State following a decision by the Waverley Council to grant

103

permission. The site is located in an area subject to very restrictive notations, namely Green Belt, Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value.

Analysis:

This case is particularly important because it was a ‘call in’ so the Secretary of State’s views are recorded on a series of very interesting issues (Appendix 11).

As with all call-in cases the Secretary of State indicated the matters upon which he wished to be informed as follows:

a. Whether the proposal conflicted with published guidance on Green Belt policy and if so, are there very special circumstances to justify consent.

b. Whether the proposal demonstrates that it is of the highest quality and within the AONB.

c. The relationship of the scheme to advice in PPG Note 13 on transport and the degree of reliance on the private car.

d. The relevance of the proposal to PPG 15 ‘Planning and Historic Environment’.

e. Other matters and conditions.

On the first matter, the Inspector found the scheme involved inappropriate development in the Green Belt with an adverse impact upon the openness of the area. The Inspector’s reasoning is consistent with the appropriate approach to the assessment of the issue; this was not evident in the Sunninghill case, when the Council considered the practical visual aspects, looking at the Green Belt

104

CHAPTER 5

NEW COUNTRY HOUSES

quality. This aspect is set out in paragraphs 44 to 48 of the Inspector’s report; at paragraphs 49 and 51 the view is taken that the house would be truly outstanding and again the identity of the architect played an important role in this conclusion (see Appendix 11). As the property is well away from any towns and services it was clearly contrary to Planning Guidance Note 13 ‘Transport’ which places emphasis on the availability of services.

Conclusion:

In the overall assessment the Inspector emphasised the contribution the house would make to the overall historic landscape and buildings within the area. The Secretary of State accepted that in total the case justified the grant of consent contrary to the Development Plan policies.

Key determining factor(s): very special circumstances of enhancement of landscape. Well known architect. Replacement of earlier house.