Google+ Followers

Tuesday, 2 February 2010

Badgers Sett - application Jan - Feb 2010

From Badgers Sett. 2010


Re Application 10/00106 View the documentation on the Malvern Hills Application Search. ( a tedious process!)

We have received a rather unusual application from Mr Garlands agent. He is applying for a Lawful Development Certificate for a Proposed Use or development. This relates to some plans that he has submitted to define the proposal.

I have attached a number of documents that I hope you will peruse carefully. You will remember that we have had a number of problems with developments from this applicant and opposed his last submission to build a two story gabled extension on the rear and to replace a substandard lean to building. He was, despite our entreaties granted permission for this latest development.

Clearly this does not suit his requirements and new plans would indicate that he has revisited the project. Though this time he is employing a new tactic that he hopes will push through his proposal

In effect Mr Garland proposes to build all the previous extensions but also add some very llarge additions to the front elevation of the building.

The internal layout will be extensively modified and rationalised.

I enclose images of the proposal here:-


There are 8 pictures, best viewed as a slide show, please allow sufficient time for them to download, I was loath to degrade their quality. The last two images have I included to remind you of the front elevation and the ground floor plan also gives you indication of the existing internal layout.

We have consistently objected to Mr Garlands proposals on the grounds of scale and inappropriate design. The original cottage (not a farm as he states) has been swamped by his previous extensions. This proposal would completely obliterate the original building.
In no way is it subservient to the original building or even the extended building. If you look carefully at the proposal the cottage can now be found as the 'lobby' in the centre of the building.
In some ways I would argue that it may be better if the whole building were demolished and an architect brought in to design something new and with some architectural integrity.

However we see in the letter from Sarah Errington we cannot object on the planning merits of the development, use, operation or activity in the application (such as amenity, design or landscape impacts) as these are not relevant . The issue of a certificate depends entirely on factual evidence about the history and planning status of the building or other land and the interpretation of any relevant planning law or judicial authority.

I personally see this as an attempt to circumvent normal planning procedures and local consultation. As the Castlemorton PC have proved difficult in the past the applicant is seeking a 'lawful' method of achieving his wishes. Thereby bypassing any planning consultation and and any constraints that may temper or modify the development.

The Planning department will be in a better position to rule on the 'lawfulness' of the application. The main issue relates to the new front extension which is applying for lawfulness as a permitted development. If granted the building could proceed and would be built without any further planning application.This refers to the amended Town and Country Planning Acts. details of which can be found here.

We can only urge them to take care, as if they bow to legal pressure or the threat of further legal challenge we would be left with a precedent and an example that would be used by others to initiate other unfortunate and very inappropriate developments of which this is a example. As you can see from the front elevation the new building is in my opinion not a thing of beauty and compounds some very unfortunate designs.

We are seriously concerned that 'permitted' developments will proliferate. Extensions will be added to extensions and any notion of aesthetic or architectural integrity will be lost. If we cannot be consulted as to the merits of the proposal then the exercise is irrelevant and academic and can only be seen as a cynical attempt to bypass any planning consultation.

Please let me have your views and I will proceed with a statement that reflects your wishes. If you read the supporting statement you may well find issues that can be challenged. You can view the original on the planning hub. Comment on this site yourself using the appropriate link. The deadline is 11th February 2010

Jerry Fryman

No comments: