Banned Designs News
Green Belt row as planners approve large home scheme but reject summer house
A HUGE ‘Grand Designs-style’ house in the countryside has been backed by councillors – minutes after they threw out a man’s plans for a summer house in the green belt.
Members of the planning committee have approved proposals for a large three-bedroom home with a ‘green roof’ to be built on land south of John Street in the rural area of Heyrod, Tameside.
Although technically within the green belt, the meeting was told that the plans were acceptable as a different ‘Teletubby-style’ home had previously been approved for the same site, and
‘very special circumstances’ could be applied.
The site currently contains several buildings that appear to have been used for agricultural or smallholding purposes, the meeting was told.
Planning officer Steve Kirkham said the site has an ‘unkempt appearance’ at this moment in time, but the ‘principle of residential development has already been established.’
“The case presented by the applicant is such that the open character of the land would be retained as the building would be largely underground,” he added. “Officers are satisfied that the proposals would not have an additional impact of the openness or landscape character of the green belt above that of the extant permission.” Richard Mowatt, speaking on behalf of the applicant, explained that sustainable energy and efficiency measures would be used to make the house as carbon friendly as possible.
“The development would be highly sustainable and designed using ‘passive house’ principles,” he added.
But Councillor Doreen Dickinson raised concerns that the house was recommended for approval, when earlier in the same meeting the panel had turned down part-retrospective proposals for a pergoda and summer
I’m at a loss for words for how planning thinks special circumstances warrant this building
Councillor Doreen Dickinson
house. That application for land opposite 20, Hill End Cottages, on Hill End Lane in Mottram, was rejected by the panel, on officers’ recommendations, as they argued it represented ‘inappropriate development’ in the green belt.
The meeting was told that neighbouring properties have historically erected sheds and outbuildings but they had been there longer than four years, and as such are exempt from planning enforcement.
Coun Dickinson said: “What upsets me about this, this really stands out in the green belt and I personally have just refused a summer house that nobody would see on the principle of harming green belt. I’m at a loss for words for how planning thinks that special circumstances warrant this building.”
Mr Kirkham replied that the ‘very special circumstances’ around the dwelling were based on the previous planning permission for the site, and ‘design merits.’ “The site has been previously developed and comprises a number of outbuildings. The loss of those buildings does help to improve the openness and character of the green belt,” he said. “It is flanked by development to both sides. In terms of impacts it seemed to be negligible, it’s largely positive.”
All councillors aside from Coun Dickinson voted to grant the development planning permission.