Agenda Item 7

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Report to Cabinet Member for Urban Form

22nd June 2004

Consultation from MBC concerning Proposals for Residential Development at Chapel Lane,

1. Summary Statement

1.1 In recent years Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council has consulted this Council on a number of proposals concerning residential development at the former St. Margarets Hospital and Great Barr Hall and Estate.

1.2 This Council objected to these on the basis of their impact on the Green Belt. An Inquiry was held into the latest of these proposals in March of this year, on which the decision of the Secretary of State is awaited.

1.3 Subsequently further separate but significant residential proposals have emerged. This Council has been consulted on the proposals, which it is understood are due to be considered by Walsall MBC at its July Planning Committee.

1.4 The proposal involves the construction of 55 houses off Chapel Lane as “enabling development” for the restoration of the Hall and part of the Historic Parkland.

Further details are attached for your information

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the Head of Planning and Development Services be authorised to write to Walsall MBC indicating this Council’s serious reservations concerning the proposal to build 55 houses within the Green Belt as “enabling development” for the restoration of the Hall and aspects of the Parkland.

In accordance with the authority delegated to the Cabinet Member for Urban Form, the following course of action has been agreed, which will be set out in the formal record of the decisions taken by the Member:

(1) the recommendation above is approved.

(2) the recommendation above is approved as now amended.

(3) the recommendation above is not approved

______Cabinet Member for Urban Form

22nd June, 2004

Steve Gregory Executive Director Urban Form

Contact Officer

Laurence Jackson Planning and Transportation Policy Section Planning and Development Services 0121 569 4024

Consultation from Walsall MBC concerning Proposals for Residential Development at Chapel Lane, Great Barr

3 Resource Implications

3.1 There may be a need for officer involvement in an Inquiry into the proposal, however this should be possible within existing budgets.

4. Policy Implications

4.1 The course of action recommended is consistent with the Government’s Planning Policy Guidance note on Green Belts.

5. Sustainability Implications

5.1 The course of action recommended is consistent with the principles of sustainability, in particular concern over protectionof greenspace, and historic assets.

6. Crime and Disorder Implications

6.1 The course of action recommended has no direct implications for Crime and Disorder in Sandwell.

7. Implications for Young People

7.1 The course of action recommended has no direct implications for Young People in Sandwell.

8. Background Details

8.1 Great Barr Hall is a Grade II* listed building, in the Strawberry Hill Gothic style. It has associations with the Lunar Society, notable members of which being James Watt, Mathew Boulton, and Josiah Wedgewood. The historic landscaped parkland is a Registered Park and Garden of Special Historic Importance, Grade II. Part of the former Estate lies within Sandwell but is severed by the M6 and has not been directly affected by the proposals. The Estate within Walsall lies within a Conservation Area. It also falls within the Green Belt.

8.2 This part of the Green Belt contributes to a strategic gap or green wedge between Walsall, Sandwell and and is a unique, narrow and vulnerable projection into a very urbanised area. These unique qualities were recognised within the and Sandwell Valley Countryside and Recreation Subject (Local) Plan 1986, which established policies for the protection of this valuable and vulnerable area. Since then this area has consistently remained in the Green Belt within the various development plans for the area.

8.3 George Wimpey West Midlands Ltd and The Manor Preservation Trust have submitted a number of planning, Listed Building and Conservation area consent applications to Walsall M.B.C. In brief, these propose to develop 53 houses off Chapel Lane and two large houses within the Parkland. The applicants indicate that the funds generated from these would be used to restore Great Barr Hall and the aspects of the Parkland. The Hall has a separate permission to be converted into eleven residential apartments.

8.4 Due to the proposals’ potential impact on the Green Belt adjoining the Borough, it is important that Sandwell responds to the applications. Should Walsall be minded to approve the residential proposals, they would be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure.

The Issues

Green Belt

8.5 As the former Hospital, Hall and Estate lie within the West Midlands Green Belt, in particular forming a strategic gap between Walsall, Sandwell and Birmingham, Planning Policy Guidance note 2 Green Belts provides the chief consideration by which to judge these proposals.

8.6 The PPG puts forward a general presumption against inappropriate development which it states is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It continues by saying that very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The Secretary of State will attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt when considering any planning application or appeal.

8.7 The PPG indicates that the construction of new buildings inside a Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for a limited number of specified purposes. General residential is excluded from these.

8.8 Clearly the residential development would normally be contrary to Green Belt Policy. The applicants however put forward the case that the benefits funded by the development, i.e. to the Hall and Parkland, provide the special circumstances necessary to allow inappropriate development.

8.9 The chief attribute of Green Belt land is its openness. If this is prejudiced then there will be harm. This harm applies whether it is on the inner edge of, or within the Green Belt. These schemes involve both.

8.10 The Green Belt in Chapel Lane becomes apparent soon after the junction with the main road, with the rural panorama opening out to the east and north once past the Hotel. This immediate eastern area is generally in agricultural use, although there are a number of sports pitches off Chapel Lane. The opening out of the western panorama is delayed by the residential properties to Chapel Lane. Further into Chapel Lane are the Lodge, the golf club and the buildings associated with the farm. These buildings are generally of a character consistent with a rural location. The listed church opposite the farm completes this small hamlet within the Green Belt.

8.11 The proposed development would, in effect, close the gap between the existing properties to Chapel Lane and this small hamlet. It would result in an urban extension penetrating into the Green Belt, transforming the character of the area. The Green Belt/rural character would be lost until north of the Hamlet, over half a kilometre beyond where it currently begins. Sandwell contend this represents very considerable harm.

8.12 The second aspect of the proposals, the “Boathouse” and “Farmhouse”, introduces large residential properties into the heart of the Green Belt and the Estate. They are inappropriate to the Green Belt and therefore harmful. Whilst efforts have been made to reduce the visual impact of these houses, limited visual intrusion cannot be advanced as justification for building houses in the Green Belt and the countryside. Enabling Development

8.13 English Heritage, conscious of the increasing use of enabling development contrary to planning policy in order to benefit heritage assets, has produced a policy statement and a practical guide to assessment on the issue. This clearly states that there should be a presumption against enabling development, and goes on to say that permission should only be granted if the applicant demonstrates that on balance, benefits clearly outweigh any disbenefits, including those to any other relevant planning interests. The E.H. statement goes on to say that the presumption against enabling development should be applied unless the benefit of the survival of the historic asset outweighs the long term cost/disbenefits to the community of providing the enabling development.

8.14 Furthermore the statement indicates that it should be demonstrable that the amount of development is the minimum necessary to secure the future of the heritage asset, and that it is of a form which would minimise any disbenefits.

8.15 This requires that a difficult judgement be made between the disbenefits to the green belt and the benefits to the listed building. On the surface this would seem weighted in favour of the Hall. It is a building of national importance, being Grade II* Listed, whilst the Green Belt is of local and strategic importance to the West Midlands, i.e. of county - wide importance.

8.16 However, in reality, the assessment is not so straightforward. Sandwell acknowledges that the Hall had many historic associations, which, when attached to a building of architectural merit and within a landscaped setting, would be an asset to the local area, the West Midlands and to the UK. Unfortunately the setting of the Hall has eroded over time through the development of the hospital and through its management for uses other than its original purpose. Furthermore, and most importantly, the Hall itself has had no use for many years and its fabric has declined severely. Most of the interior has gone, windows and doors have been damaged or weathered, as has the brickwork, render, timberwork and tiles. This is reflected by the indicative costs provided for the Hall’s restoration

The Hall

8.17 Such is the extent of the decline and therefore of the restoration works proposed, there is a question over the authenticity of the Hall upon restoration. Even given good quality materials and workmanship, much of it would be at best a replica. The proposed subdivision into eleven individual units would further prejudice its historic and architectural merits. The case for a scheme which prejudices the Green Belt in order that a replica of an important building can be constructed is not convincing.

8.18 Furthermore, if the cost of the full rebuilding of a replica requires development that has a harmful effect on the Green Belt, it should be demonstrated that alternative schemes which address the historic and architectural asset but require less enabling development have been exhaustively examined. No evidence has been submitted to this Council that indicates that any lower impact proposal have been investigated. It should be fully demonstrated that such an option would be inappropriate or unviable before considering a proposal which harms the Green Belt.

8.19 The restoration schedule discusses kitchens, bathrooms and new internal partitions. This suggests that the “restoration” includes the creation of the eleven apartments. This seems to go beyond the minimum necessary to restore the Hall, and therefore requires more than the minimum enabling development necessary. Furthermore, the schedule includes refrigeration and white goods, which would seem to be beyond simply restoring the property towards furnishing it. This requires clarification.

8.20 The message that the proposal gives could be interpreted as encouraging dereliction in order to justify building in the Green Belt.

The Parkland

8.21 The Parkland is not completely within the control of the Manor Preservation Trust. The restoration of much of the Registered Parkland is tied to the redevelopment of the former Hospital Grounds. The decision on which is currently awaited from the Secretary of State. Evidence of joint working or mechanisms to ensure a consistent and comprehensive approach is taken to the historic landscape has not been submitted to this Council. The proposals which involve the Hospital site also allow for controlled public access, giving a public benefit. The proposals for Chapel Lane, the “Farmhouse” and “Boathouse” properties within the Park and the Hall do not provide for such direct public/community benefit.

Ensuring restoration

8.22 Should the decision be reached whereby inappropriate development is deemed to be acceptable to enable the rebuilding of the Hall and restoration of the parkland, it is imperative that the works to the historic features is guaranteed.

8.23 It is a concern that the costs of the works to the Parkland do not appear to be built into the enabling calculation. It is clearly necessary to be confident that the funding for this is secured. Similarly if there is a shortfall in the funding of the Hall building works, as indicated in the supporting statement, it has to be demonstrated that the Trust have the capability of funding the gap.

8.24 It is reasonable that the development/restoration/rebuilding is phased to enable sufficient resources to be generated to carry out the works. However if the Green Belt is to be prejudiced it is imperative that the full restoration/rebuilding is carried out. Some form of guarantee or bond is necessary to ensure all phases of the works are carried out satisfactorily.

Highways

8.25 It is understood that the traffic generated by the proposals does not produce any significant highways concerns, except for pedestrian access along Chapel Lane to the Birmingham Road (A34). This issue is being raised directly with Walsall’s highways officers.

Conclusion

8.26 The Head of Planning and Development Services should inform Walsall MBC of this Council’s following strong reservations concerning the proposals at Chapel Lane, and Great Barr Hall and Estate:

• There is considerable harm to the Green Belt, and this Council is not convinced that the rebuilding of what would largely be a replica of Great Barr Hall subdivided into eleven apartments is of overriding importance.

• Sandwell MBC is also unconvinced that lower impact alternatives have been exhaustively examined.

• The Council is not convinced that the enabling development is the minimum necessary for the restoration of the Hall.

Should Walsall MBC be minded to approve the proposals, there would be the need for a guarantee that the full restoration will be achieved, which may require a mechanism such as a legal agreement or bond.

Source Documents

Government Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2) Green Belts

Enabling Development and the Conservation of Heritage Assets – Policy Statement & Practical Guide to Assessment - English Heritage.

Chapelln