Once again, the proposal was found to be harmful to the setting of heritage “other assets” (the Old Lodge etc.), as well as to the historic setting of the Hall itself. This harm was assessed as than substantial” for the purposes of paragraph 134 of “less the NPPF, which requires such harm to be weighed against public benefits. Sustainability Once more the proposal was found not to amount to sustainable development, being in the open countryside where it would be largely reliant on private transport and make little contribution to sustaining local facilities; largely it appeared owing to the absence of any such facilities. In short, for the purposes of paragraph 8 of the NPPF the proposal would have little social cohesion with the existing community, be remote from services and facilities and be harmful to local landscape character and visual amenity. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF was, however, noted as recognising that enabling development may be likely, by its very nature, to be located in a rural area and that this fact should be considered in weighing the scheme in the overall balance. Justification for an enabling development, the amount and type At the Hearing, in response to the inspector’s questions, Mr Spry confirmed that the Hall and most of the surrounding land was purchased with the intention of making it a family home with an enabling development in mind”. This is perhaps a singular “but admission as the Spry family, being property developers, accepted that a housing development contrary to policy was a fundamental aim and not, it appears, a of last resort” as required by the HE Guidance. The inspector’s finding on “subsidy the first appeal that English Heritage declined grant aid, in part, because funds might be achieved through the proposed enabling development earned the inspector’s comment that such a ground for grant refusal uneasily with the HE Guidance “sits that enabling development is a subsidy of last resort”. In the first appeal, the inspector found that there was imbalance between the “an conservation deficit and residual profit” from the proposed enabling development and hence criterion (f) of the HE Guidance was not satisfied. On the second appeal, the inspector accepted that 35 units were the minimum required to repair the Hall so as to remove it from the Buildings at Risk Register and that the concerns of the previous
Once again, the proposal was found to be harmful to the setting of “other heritage assets” (the Old Lodge etc.), as well as to the historic setting of the Hall itself. This harm was assessed as “less than substantial” for the purposes of paragraph 134 of the NPPF, which requires such harm to be weighed against public benefits. Sustainability Once more the proposal was found not to amount to sustainable development, being in the open countryside where it would be largely reliant on private transport and make little contribution to sustaining local facilities; largely it appeared owing to the absence of any such facilities. In short, for the purposes of paragraph 8 of the NPPF the proposal would have little social cohesion with the existing community, be remote from services and facilities and be harmful to local landscape character and visual amenity. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF was, however, noted as recognising that enabling development may be likely, by its very nature, to be located in a rural area and that this fact should be considered in weighing the scheme in the overall balance. Justification for an enabling development, the amount and type At the Hearing, in response to the inspector’s questions, Mr Spry confirmed that the Hall and most of the surrounding land was purchased with the intention of making it a family home “but with an enabling development in mind”. This is perhaps a singular admission as the Spry family, being property developers, accepted that a housing development contrary to policy was a fundamental aim and not, it appears, a “subsidy of last resort” as required by the HE Guidance. The inspector’s finding on the first appeal that English Heritage declined grant aid, in part, because funds might be achieved through the proposed enabling development earned the inspector’s comment that such a ground for grant refusal “sits uneasily with the HE Guidance that enabling development is a subsidy of last resort”. In the first appeal, the inspector found that there was “an imbalance between the conservation deficit and residual profit” from the proposed enabling development and hence criterion (f) of the HE Guidance was not satisfied. On the second appeal, the inspector accepted that 35 units were the minimum required to repair the Hall so as to remove it from the Buildings at Risk Register and that the concerns of the previous
Anatomy%20of%20Trojan%20Horse-%20Enabling%20Development%20Exposed.docx