Name of Applicant Map/Plan Plan Ref. Type of Certificate Proposal Policy Expiry Date ______

GL50 Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, GB B/2007/1101 PROPERTIES Manor Road, , 28.01.2007 & LANDMARQUE SITES 'A'

RECOMMENDATION : that permission be REFUSED .

Consultations

WCC(HP) Consulted - views received 05.11.2007: • No objection. ENG Consulted - views received 06.11.2007: • No objection subject to Conditions. Planning Policy Consulted - views received 07.11.2007: • The District currently has a moratorium on housing in accordance with the guidance contained within the RSS and guidance that was contained within SPG10. Whilst there was originally a dwelling on a site, this dwelling was demolished in excess of 50 years ago. The proposal therefore does not constitute a replacement dwelling and is consequently contrary to the housing moratorium. • The above site is situated within the Green Belt and therefore PPG2, policy D.39 of the County Structure Plan and policy DS2 of the adopted District Local Plan applies. • By definition, a new dwelling would be considered as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It is therefore necessary for the applicant to demonstrate very special circumstances to outweigh this harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Tree Officer Consulted - views received 14.12.2007: • This site has an impressive array of tree cover ranging from large, old parkland trees now set among semi-natural woodland through to more recent conifer plantation. At both local and landscape level, this range of tree cover provides considerable value as both amenity and biodiversity habitat and is therefore worthy of retention. • From the plans and details submitted, the actual construction of the buildings in this proposal would appear to require and / or cause little loss or damage to the trees on the site. I therefore am of the opinion that this element can be carried out without great adverse effect upon the trees on the site so long as a scheme of sufficient and appropriate protection is provided. • The surrounding landscape works, however, propose considerable loss of the trees on site as well as breaks in the existing woodland cover currently provided. The submitted landscape planning report justifies this tree loss partially on the grounds of improving the diversity of the existing and remaining woodland areas as well as by the provision of further planting. I am broadly in agreement with this B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites

view and consider that, subject to an appropriate and approved management plan, the majority of the landscape proposals can be carried out to be of benefit to the woodland and tree habitats on the site. • My principal concern with the landscape proposals submitted is in regard to the change in conditions within the woodland areas which could be caused by the proposed tree removal. The 'opening up' of the existing woodland will make the remaining trees even more at risk of loss due to the wind damage which is evident on this already exposed location. The proposed thinning of the woodland and creation of rides and glades will also reduce the temperature and sheltering effect currently provided and could be detrimental for those plants and animals currently present. • I consider that the above concerns can be reduced or avoided through the provision of and adherence to a suitable and detailed ecological assessment which is then used to inform a long-term woodland management plan. • I therefore have no objection to the proposal subject to Conditions, including a landscape management plan. EHO Views received 06.11.2007: Contaminated • No objection subject to the attachment of guidance note relating to Land contaminated land investigation prior to the commencement of any development taking place. NEO Consulted 10.12.07: views awaited. Urban Designer Consulted - views received 30.11.07: • I have been sent some of the drawings accompanying the planning application; site location plan, existing and proposed site plans, floor plans, and elevations. I have not seen sections, although they are indicated on the plans, nor have I seen any perspective or other kind of 3d drawings, or photographs of a model. I have not seen a Design and Access Statement. I have visited the site and walked the extent of it. • There are presumably major planning issues concerned with this application, relating to the size of the proposed development, and to the fact that it occupies agricultural land which is presumably in the Green Belt. I have not concerned myself with these issues, but have confined myself to assessing the design quality of the proposal. • The drawings are unhelpful in this task. They are very schematic, and flat, and diagrammatic in their lack of information about what happens, for instance, where surfaces of different materials join. • The site planning is orthogonal, and derives from the neo-classical tradition in its use of axes and regulating lines. Apart from the proposed tree avenue which aligns itself to the apsidal shape in the existing brick retaining wall, the site planning appears not to be informed by any of the sites natural features. This is not a negative criticism, as the neo-classical tradition of geometric formality in the placing of buildings and gardens is a long and respectable one. However, I am puzzled by the limited extent to which the main living rooms take advantage of the long distance views which are available B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites

from the site towards the west and south-west. Instead, they align themselves to the south, facing the existing wood. • Main living spaces are generally at the first floor level, expressed as pavilions standing on top of podia enclosing secondary and service rooms. This is an appropriate and consistently followed design idea, expressed both in form and in the selection of materials. • It is in the actual shaping of the buildings, their fenestration and in the number of materials that I find the design problematic. The built forms appear awkward and ungainly, and perhaps deliberately so. There is no consistent pattern or rhythm of forms which could give coherence to the whole ensemble. The fenestration appears from the drawings to consist of various shapes inscribed on to the building's surfaces, rather than a vocabulary contributing to a legible pattern of solid and voids. There are far too many materials used, and I consider the result would be incoherent. • There is, in the drawings, an absence of tectonic information relating to the structural design of the buildings. This is part of the drawings' schematic quality. It is not necessary for architecture to be explicit about its structural nature, and there is an architecture which is primarily about surface; perhaps the architects of this scheme subscribe to that school. Nonetheless, structure has to be there, and I consider that a detailed planning application should give information about how it informs the building's shapes. • My conclusion is that, if this proposal passes the 'in-principle' tests at the planning level, then you should be asking more of the applicants at the design level. For such a big and significant (and expensive) residential development, they should be delivering better and more guaranteed quality in the architecture.

Consulted with additional information - views received 10.12.2007: • Subsequent to my comments upon some of the planning application drawings, written on 28th November (above), I have been sent the Planning, Design and Access Statement, the landscape architect's Landscape Planning Report, and a series of perspective views of the proposed house and garden and its landscape setting. These have enabled me to gain a more complete understanding both of the proposal, and also of the thinking behind it.

• I consider that both the site planning and the landscape strategy are well considered. There is a satisfying historical continuity in the decision to place the new house on the footprint of the old house, and to maintain the previous access routes from the road. I am puzzled by the apparent contradiction between the several occasions in the design and access statement where it is stated that the intention is that the house be "rooted in the landscape" rather than being placed in or on the landscape, and the forms chosen. It seems to me that the decision to place all the main rooms in a piano nobile standing on a base of service rooms inherently detaches the house from the landscape. However, this need not concern us too much as, however, the architectural policy may be described in B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites

words, it is in fact consistently followed through, and is done with skill and style. • Similarly, it appears to me that there is a disjunction between the description in the design and access statement of the piano nobile as "barns and cabins", and its appearance in the drawings. Many architects, from the Arts and Crafts period onwards, have tried in their work to achieve the simplicity of the vernacular barn. But the forms proposed here are not barnlike, but have quite sophisticated, complex and asymmetrical shapes. Again, perhaps one should not worry too much about this difference in interpretation, but concentrate on the built language rather than the written language. • However, having now seen coloured '3D' images of the house, I remain concerned by both the geometry of the house, and by its tectonic expression. Each of the main living rooms is considered as an independent volume internally, with its own geometry, deriving from the introduction of daylight into the space. This is fine, but I consider that it is not sufficient to then assemble these volumes together in the expectation that they will achieve coherence. I find the result of the assembly rather awkward and unconvincing as a synthesis. If it could attain the unified quality of a great mediaeval barn, it might be much more convincing. • The first floor forms are shown as covered, both walls and roofs, in a uniform small-unit stone cladding. The various planes meet without any articulation. In particular, there is no provision indicated for dealing with rainwater. There are no gutters, either at the edges of roofs, or at the junction of roof planes at a valley. This may sound like a detail, which may be dealt with later, but in fact it is fundamental to the whole organisation of the forms. The pure geometric shaping of forms shown in the drawings, which appears to be deliberately intended, is not constructionallly possible, and acknowledging the need for the draining of rainwater will necessarily make the architecture look quite different. • In my previous comments, I considered that there were too many materials proposed. The materials proposed are all appropriate and of high quality, but I still maintain that their excessive number is not conducive to coherence. • There is an impressive list of claims for sustainability made in the design and access statement. But there is no information given, either in the statement or in the drawings, on how these are to be realised. I mentioned in my previous comments that I thought it odd that the main living rooms face south, but straight into the nearby conifer wood. It appears from the landscape planning report that this conifer wood was not present when the previous Bentley Manor was standing; it has been planted since the 1950's. The extent of views from living rooms is a matter of choice for the applicant but, in terms of sustainability, the tall conifers will considerably restrict the amount of passive solar gain to the house. • The landscape design is, I think, very impressively done, and could result in a garden of great quality. Two exceptions to this are the tennis court and the stables. These are positioned unconvincingly in B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites

my opinion, and present an opportunity for a more attractive grouping than is achieved. • In summary, having had the opportunity to see a fuller version of what is proposed for Bentley Manor, I consider that it is a proposal of considerable potential quality. The landscape design in particular is impressive, with one or two minor exceptions. The architecture has its awkwardnesses and its impracticalities, but is capable of resolution. The sustainability programme requires further evidence to demonstrate how it is to be delivered. CABE Consulted - views received 18.12.2007: • We have been unable to view the site in this instance but feel that we have a fair understanding of the site and its context from the information supplied. • This is clearly a thoughtful proposition that integrates landscape and architecture well. It is a high quality piece of architecture which we believe should receive planning permission. • We have confidence that these architects will be able to produce a scheme of the quality suggested given sufficient timescales and money. • However, we recommend the implications of weathering on the building as well as the challenges associated with constructing a high spec. building of this type are anticipated at this stage. • Ultimately the success of this development will be dependent on the quality of materials and detailing in the architecture and landscape. These need to be of the highest quality to realise the aspirations of the scheme design. • We suggest the LPA condition materials and details to ensure design quality is maintained. WCC(CA) Consulted - views received 27.11.2007: • Further information in the form of an evaluation is required concerning the archaeological potential of the development area prior to determination of the application. This should be in the form of a brief written on 27th November 2007. Forestry Consulted - views received 09.11.2007: Commission • No objection subject to native tree replanting taking place to compensate for loss of felled trees. Bentley Consulted - views received 07.12.2007: Pauncefoot PC • We have been dismayed by the current proposal to once again apply for planning permission to build in the Green Belt: another attempt at resurrecting the original Bentley Pauncefoot Manor House approximately in the same spot. This was put forward in 2000 and was rejected at that time. Now once again it has re-appeared. Will probably continue to keep re-applying until they achieve acceptance. • Concerns over traffic and highway safety. • Require more time to consider proposals in conjunction with local

residents. Additional views received 17.12.2007: • Site is in the Green Belt where there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. Such development should not B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites

be approved, except in very special circumstances according to PPG2 and Local Plan policies. • The proposed development is inappropriate, by definition, as it would involve the construction of new buildings, which do not fall within the exceptions itemised in paragraph 3.4 of PPG2. • Paragraph 11 of PPS7 does not overrule either the presumption against inappropriate development in paragraph 3.1 of PPG2 of the unequivocal statement against new buildings in the Green Belt in paragraph 3.4 of PPG2. • The development would cause serious harm to the openness of the Green Belt in this location. • The application proposes the construction of three dwellings on the site - a five-bedroom country house, a one-bedroom guest flat with separate access and full facilities for independent occupation and a staff flat (facilities undefined). BDC has consistently refused planning consent over the past four years throughout the District for dwellings which breach the terms of SPG10. The proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of SPG10. • The scheme is not outstanding or ground breaking, does not relate to the highest standards in contemporary architecture, produce a significant enhancement of its immediate setting or is sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area. • The house design is an undistinguished hotpotch, made from a kit of modernist parts stuck together in a vain attempt to look innovative. • The house has been designed without regard to the site, to its immediate surroundings, to the characteristics of the local area (in particular, to the use of non-local materials) or to its adverse impact on the wider landscape. • Should be noted that a recent search of a publicly available appeal database found 19 appeals decided in the past 5 years in which paragraph 11 of PPS7 (and its predecessor in PPG7) was a determining factor. Only 1 of these appeals was allowed. • Estimated that only about 20 new country houses have been granted planning consent in the whole of and Wales since paragraph 11 of PPS7 and its predecessor were first introduced in 1997. It would be a truly brave decision to rank this particular proposal alongside those few truly outstanding developments that have been approved nationwide in the past 2 years, without compelling and comprehensive evidence of the merits of the design from a number of recognised sources. The assertions made, on behalf of the applicant, are not enough to reach such a conclusion. • The plans provided are deficient in that they do not provide complete information about every aspect of the proposed building. • In summary, the Parish Council is of the view that the justification provided demonstrates that the proposal fails to meet the necessary tests in PPS7 and PPG2 and the application should be refused planning consent for this reason.

B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites

Publicity 1 letter sent 13.11.2007 (expired 04.12.2007). 2 site notices posted 12.12.2007 (expire 02.01.2008). 2 press notices published 09.11.2007 (expired 30.11.2007).

3 responses received: • Design is brutal and does not fit in with the local vernacular and fails to respect local building traditions. • There has been no habitable house on the site since the last World War. • Green Belt. • Loss of amenity. • Visual impact. • Loss of ecological benefit. • No valid reasons have been given to overcome the 1999 refusal.

The site and its surroundings

The application site of approximately 4 hectares is located on the western side of Manor Road to the south of Upper Bentley Farm. The site contains substantial areas of mature woodland, a network of tracks and patches and some clearing areas. A fenced area for the provision of pheasant raising is located centrally within the site. According to the applicant's agent, the 1927 Ordnance Survey map shows Bentley Manor sited within this woodland with associated parkland to the south and west. Whilst there are remnants of boundary walls and other garden structures, the house itself has all but disappeared. The site has been largely unattended since the demolition of the original dwelling in the 1950's and little or no woodland and landscape management has taken place. The site is completely overgrown, although the original planting structure of mature tree specimens remains visible.

The application site is well screened to the south, east and north by established planting. The site stands on a ridge, below which the land falls away to the west and is in a relatively open and exposed position. The site is visible from the public footpath on open ground to the west leading off Bentley Lane to the north of the site. The site is located within recognised Green Belt.

Proposal

This proposal relates to a full application for the erection of a new part three-storey individually designed five bedroom dwelling with a self contained one-bedroom staff flat and ancillary structures and features equating to 2,455 square metres consisting of the following:

(a) Two-storey stable block. (b) Tennis pavilion. (c) Belvedere. (d) Two-storey garage block with accommodation for six vehicles with the upper level containing a two-bedroom self-contained guest accommodation. (e) Tennis court. (f) Pools and bog garden created from existing wet hollow. (g) Reinstatement of sun dial. B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites

(h) Supplementary and reinforced planting. (i) Parking areas. (j) Two no. gravel driveways to follow the route of the old driveway and route of existing track.

The applicant's agent has confirmed in writing that the proposed tree house indicated on the submitted drawings no longer forms part of the application.

The applicant's agent describes the application as:

Bentley Manor is proposed as a new country house appearing as a garden without boundaries and borders in a literal sense as accommodation is provided under and in a series of 'barns' and 'cabins' straddling over garden walls. This is a home set within a new series of gardens, where hedges and garden walls define boundaries between the changing planning, external and internal paved terraces, habitable gardens, 'rooms' and woodland.

A Planning, Design and Access Statement, Landscape Planning Report and Initial Field Ecology Survey have accompanied the application and are available in the relevant planning file should Members wish to view them. The applicant has also submitted '3D' visuals and photo montages of the scheme.

Relevant Policies

WMSS QE1, QE5, QE6, CF2, CF3, CF6 WCSP SD.2, SD.3, SD.4, SD.5, SD.8, CTC.1, CTC.2, CTC.5, CTC.6, CTC.7, CTC.12, CTC.14, CTC.15, CTC.17, CTC.18, CTC.19, D.12, D.38, D.39, D.43, T.1 BDLP DS2, DS3, DS4, DS5, DS13, S9, S12, C4, C5, C10A, C12, C17, C18, C36, C37,C38, C39, TR11, ES1 Others PPS1, PPG2, PPS3, PPS7, PPS9, PPG13, PPG16, Circular 06/05

Relevant Planning History

B/1999/0152 New manor house: refused 19.04.1999. Appeal dismissed 15.05.2000.

Notes

I consider the main issues with this application to be:

(a) Whether the proposals are appropriate development in the Green Belt and if not whether there are any special circumstances which would override the harm caused. (b) Impact on character and appearance of the locality. (c) Implications for highway safety and egress. (d) Ecology issues. (e) Archaeological issues. (e) Affect on residential amenity.

B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites

Policy Issues

Policy D.39 of the adopted Worcestershire County Structure Plan states that there will be a presumption against allowing inappropriate development in the Green Belt as stemming from national planning guidance PPG2 "Green Belt". Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Policies D.12 and D.38 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan and policy DS2 of the Local Plan are in general accordance with PPG2 in resisting development in the Green Belt unless the proposals fall within a defined list of appropriate development. Paragraph 3.15 of PPG2 states that the visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which, although they would not prejudice the purposes of including land in Green Belts, might be visually detrimental by reason of their siting, materials or design.

Policy DS13 of the BDLP requires development to protect the Plan areas essential character and main environmental assets, including the open and undeveloped nature of the countryside and the Green Belt. Policy C4 states that development will not be permitted where it would have a materially detrimental effect on the landscape, especially within Landscape Protection Areas (LPA's). Policy CTC.1 of the WCSP sets out a general requirement that the Local Planning Authority in considering development proposals should take every opportunity to safeguard, restore or enhance, as appropriate, the landscape character of the area in which they are proposed. Proposals for development and associated land use change or land management must demonstrate that they are informed by, and sympathetic to, the landscape character of the area in which they are proposed to take place.

PPS1 states that planning policies should promote high quality inclusive design in the layout of new developments and individual buildings in terms of function and impact, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development (paragraph 13). Paragraph 38 of PPS1 goes onto state that local planning authorities should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness, particularly where this is supported by clear plan policies or supplementary planning documents on design. Members will note the BDLP does not contain any specific policy relating to design.

Paragraph 10 of PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas is relevant. This states that isolated new houses in the countryside will require special justification for planning permission to be granted.

Paragraph 11 of PPS7 goes onto state that 'very occasionally the exceptional quality and innovative nature of the design of a proposed, isolated new house may provide this special justification for granting planning permission. Such a design should be truly outstanding and ground-breaking;, for example, in its use of materials, methods of construction or its contribution to protecting and enhancing the environment, so helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas. The value of such a building will be found in its reflection of the highest standards in contemporary architecture, the significant enhancement of its immediate setting and its sensitivity to the defining characteristics of the local area '. B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites

Paragraph 12 states that planning authorities should ensure that development respects and, where possible, enhances these particular qualities. It should also contribute to a sense of local identity and regional diversity and be of an appropriate design and scale for its location, having regard to the policies on design contained in PPS1 and supported By Design . Planning authorities should take a positive approach to innovative, high- quality contemporary designs that are sensitive to their immediate setting and help to make country towns and villages better places for people to live and work.

In the previous 1999 appeal, the Inspector considered the suggestion by the appellants at that time that the proposal could be considered as a replacement dwelling under policy S12 of the then draft Local Plan. The Inspector quite rightly considered this policy to relate to the replacement of existing dwellings and, as the former manor house had been demolished over 40 years ago at that time, did not consider this policy to be relevant to the appeal. I consider this position still stands in relation to this matter.

Harm caused

I consider the proposal would go against the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy (PPG2, paragraph 1.4) to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It is clear that since the main buildings were demolished the character of the site has changed substantially. Thus, despite signs of previous occupation, the site now forms part of the surrounding countryside and contributes to visual quality through the woodland planting and general absence of built development. The site therefore lies in an undeveloped rural location in open countryside.

I acknowledge that the site of the proposed dwellinghouse is well screened to the south, east and north by established planting. However, the site stands on a ridge, below which the ground falls away to the west and is in a very open and exposed position. The site would thus be prominent when viewed from this direction, including the public right of way which crosses the adjoining field. One of the main purposes of Green Belts is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. In my view, the cumulative impact of the development would involve a substantial intrusion of built form (dwelling, garage block, stable building, belvedere, tennis pavilion) which would amount to encroachment into the countryside and significantly erode the openness of the site and thus cause harm to the Green Belt in this location.

By developing land in the countryside, the proposal would also not encourage the recycling of derelict or other urban land. I do not consider that Green Belt in this area contributes to the setting of historic towns but for the reasons given above, I consider that the proposal would conflict with the remainder of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.

Members also need to consider that there is a strong likelihood that the simplest residential activities and paraphernalia associated with a family dwelling of any design in this location would cause significant change to the sensitive nature of this location. These could include the use of play equipment, inappropriate domestic planting, pets and informal pedestrian activity and the more transient effects of increased levels of noise and lighting, all of which would alter the intrinsic character of this rural Green Belt location. The site contains a large forecourt area and the combination of the parked vehicles of unrestricted sizes and colours arising from the occupiers of the new dwelling, guest flat B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites and workers accommodation would further harm the openness of the Green Belt and detract from the rural character of the site in this location.

On this basis, I consider that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development. In addition to harm by virtue of inappropriateness, the development would erode the openness of the Green Belt and be contrary to the policy of residential development in the Green Belt without justification. It is necessary, therefore, to consider whether there are any very special circumstances to outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt caused by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm.

In considering proposals for inappropriate development in the Green Belt, paragraph 3.2 of PPG2 is relevant:

"Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted . Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In view of the presumption against inappropriate development, the Secretary of State will attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt when considering any planning application or appeal concerning such development" ( Council emphasis ).

The words "very special" to be given their ordinary, natural meaning: The meaning of the word "special" include those which exceed or excel those which are common. The test in relation to Green Belt policy qualifies that meaning to the extent that the circumstances have to be "very" special. Members will now be aware that establishing very special circumstances involves a balancing exercise. On the one side is the extent of the harm to the Green Belt by virtue of inappropriateness and any other factors. On the other side are the positive advantages of the proposal. Very special circumstances exist where the advantages outweigh the harm.

The applicant is of the view that the construction of the new country house and its contribution to the character and amenity of the location through its exceptional design constitute the very special circumstances required. For the purposes of the balancing exercise, I have taken these points into consideration and will deal with these in turn.

Advice within National Planning Policy Guidance Notes and Statements and Policies within the WCSP and BDLP makes it clear that the impact upon the character of the locality, as well as the relationship of proposed developments to the surrounding area to be legitimate material factors to take into account in the determination of planning proposals. Indeed, Government guidance advocates the rejection of poorly designed developments, including those that are clearly incompatible with their surroundings. This approach is clearly evident in PPS7 in relation to the erection of new country houses.

I would reiterate paragraph 11 of PPS7. This states:

Very occasionally the exceptional quality and innovative nature of the design of a proposed, isolated new house may provide this special justification for granting planning permission. Such a design should be truly outstanding and ground-breaking, for example, in its use of materials, methods of construction B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites

or its contribution to protecting and enhancing the environment, so helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas. The value of such a building will be found in its reflection of the highest standards in contemporary architecture, the significant enhancement of its immediate setting and its sensitivity to the defining characteristics of the local area.

This raises two main issues:

(a) The design should be truly outstanding and ground breaking and thus help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas. (b) The value should relate to a reflection of: • the highest standards of contemporary architecture; • significant enhancement of its immediate setting; • sensitivity to the defining characteristics of the local area.

I acknowledge that the applicant has attempted to design something truly outstanding, groundbreaking and innovative in the terms sought by PPS7. Where there is innovation it may be in the use of a new material, method of construction or form, or alternatively, the use of an established version of these elements in an innovative way and it is clear that the examples given in paragraph 11 are not exhaustive.

Members will note the views of the Council's Independent Urban Designer. The UD has provided a substantial consultation response in relation to this matter and Members are invited to read these comments in detail. The UD has taken the view that both the site planning and the landscape strategy are well considered and concurs with the historical continuity in the decision to place the new house on the footprint of the old house, and to maintain the previous access routes from Manor Road. However, concern arises from the apparent contradiction on several occasions in the design and access statement where it is states that the intention is that the house be "rooted in the landscape" rather than being placed in or on the landscape, and the forms chosen. The UD refers to concerns both from the geometry of the house, and by its tectonic expression and the sophisticated, complex and asymmetrical shapes of the detached structures. In conclusion, the UD considers that the scheme is a proposal of considerable potential (my emphasis) quality but expresses concern over the awkwardness and its impracticalities and, although acknowledging the external facing materials proposed are all appropriate and of high quality, disquiet is expressed that their excessive number does not illustrate a cohesive scheme.

I find the visual design of the building to be exciting and one that does reflect a high standard through an abstract form of contemporary architecture and a relationship with the historic legacy of the site, including its landform and planting. The spaces around the building would provide a link with the existing and proposed planting and it is clear that this forms a major part of the proposal. On this basis and given the views of the UD, I consider the design to be innovative within the progressive nature of architectural design, and the building and the landscaping is clearly designed to be of exceptional quality. In my view, the building would thus in part satisfy the thrust of the guidance in PPS7. However, the architectural quality of the design on its own is not sufficient to override the presumption against allowing the development in such a Green Belt location or permit it under paragraph 11 of PPS7.

B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites

Taking the development in its entirety, I do not consider the scheme to be a significant enhancement of its immediate setting. Whilst I note PPS7 is less concerned with a traditional country house in a wider managed landscape, and more concerned with the immediate surroundings, I do not consider the existing area to be defective or degraded. The site forms part of an attractive rural agricultural scene set in recognised Green Belt and, as such, I do not take the view that the development is sensitive to the defining rural characteristics of the local area in Upper Bentley. In the 1999 appeal, the Inspector took that view that, despite signs of previous occupation, the site now forms part of the surrounding countryside and contributes to its visual quality through the woodland planting and general absence of built development (paragraph 15).

I am of the view that, despite the existence of screen planting and the implementation of additional and reinforced planting to the site, the elevated ridge location of the new dwelling would mean that this would not form an impenetrable visual barrier and the site would be visible from public vantage points afforded by the public right of way to the west. The scheme does involve the removal of wedges of woodland (with the exception of key mature historic trees). According to the applicant's agent, these cuts will enable views from the new house but deny any significant view of the new house from the open countryside to the south due to the depth of woodland through which the "cuts" are formed. In this respect, oblique views may be obtained through the removal of this existing screening. I am also concerned that the cumulative impact and scale of the other features add significantly to the harm that would be caused. I recognise that, in time, planting could, to some extent, mitigate against the adverse visual impact of the development. It would take many years, however, before the planting would be of sufficient height and maturity to totally screen the new building. Such screening in my view would also be less effective during winter months. Trees and hedges are also not permanent and cannot undo the overt visual impact of the development. Furthermore, although the development cannot be seen, in the wider context this does not make it appropriate and this argument could be used time and time again. Lack of harm, in itself, does not amount to very special circumstances.

Whilst I find the design to be exciting and attractive in isolation in its use of varied planes and use of materials, I am of the view that the combination of built form in totality, including that of the two-storey garage / guest accommodation and the sheer scale of the significant two-storey stable building would not be sensitive to or blend in with its immediate surroundings but would rather stand out as a development that is alien and discordant in the landscape. The development would irrevocably alter the open character of the site into an intensively developed area, thus adversely affecting the rural character of the area and the character and appearance of the Green Belt in this location.

Members will note that the applicant suggests that additional features of this scheme substantially tip the balance in favour of granting permission. These include a strong commitment to sustainable construction and renewable energy sources, incorporating the latest 'green' technologies. The scheme is proposed to harness wind, solar and geothermal energy, as well as rainwater harvesting and grey water systems. A recycling and refuse store, with direct external access from the deliveries yard is located within the core service wall of the house. Although such approaches should be welcomed, in my view, none of the additional measures are especially ground-breaking on their own.

B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites

Having considered all material factors, I am of the view that no very special circumstances exist or have been put forward to justify overriding the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Ecological and Biodiversity Issues

The Habitats Regulations implements the requirements of the Habitats Directive for species listed in Annexe IV of the Directive (European Protected Species). Stricter provisions than those contained in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 apply for these species and regulation 3(4) of the Habitats Regulations places a duty on local planning authorities, in the exercise of their functions, to have regard to the requirements of the Directive so far as they might be affected by those functions. All European protected species are also separately protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. PPS9 encourages local planning authorities, in making planning decisions, to maintain, and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. In taking decisions, local planning authorities should ensure that appropriate weight is attached to designated sites of international, national and local importance; protected species; and to biodiversity and geological interests within the wider environment (paragraph 1). PPS9 goes onto state that the aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Where granting planning permission would result in significant harm to those interests, local planning authorities will need to be satisfied that the development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. In the absence of any such alternatives, local planning authorities should ensure that, before planning permission is granted, adequate mitigation measures are put in place. Where a planning decision would result in significant harm to biodiversity and geological interests which cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated against, appropriate compensation measures should be sought. If that significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against, or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused (paragraph 1).

Circular 06/05 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation provides administrative guidance on the application of the law relating to planning and nature conservation as it applies in England. It complements the expression of national planning policy in Planning Policy Statement 9, Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9).

Part IV of Circular 06/05 relating to the Conservation of Protected Species by Law is implicit in stating that the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat (paragraph 98). Circular 06/05 goes onto to state that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. The need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances, with the result that the surveys are carried out after planning permission has been granted (paragraph 99).

B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites

Circular 06/05 also makes it clear that developers should not be required to undertake surveys for protected species unless there is a reasonable likelihood of the species being present and affected by the development. Where this is the case, the survey should be completed and any necessary measures to protect the species should be in place, through conditions and / or planning obligations before the permission is granted. In appropriate circumstances, the permission may also impose a condition preventing the development from proceeding without the prior acquisition of a licence under the appropriate procedure (paragraph 99).

An initial field ecological survey was undertaken in September 2007. The survey states that many of the areas within the site comprise habitats that have been planted, such as Cherry Laurel hedges and conifers, or developed opportunistically following activity by man, such as the building and then demolishing of the manor house. The survey takes the view that there are no habitats of significant ecological value in a county or wider context but states that the habitats on the site do contribute to the biodiversity of the local area.

The survey states that there are badgers on the site. This species is protected by law and it is against the law to disturb a badger sett without a current licence from Natural England. If work is to be carried out close to badger setts a licence may be needed. A survey of the badger setts on the site and their activity is therefore needed before development work commences. The derelict building on the site may also provide a roost site for bats. If work is to be carried out which may disturb a bat or its roost, a licence may be needed to move the animals. A survey of the roof of the building is therefore also needed before development work commences. The survey states that no other species of significance were recorded.

The survey puts forward a number of recommendations and proposed enhancements to provide ecological benefits and value, including dealing with badger and possible bat presence. The views of the NEO on this issue are awaited and I will update Members at the meeting of the Committee.

Members will note the views of the Tree Officer.

Housing Oversupply Issues

Given that the scheme relates to the erection of a new dwelling, Members will be aware that sufficient housing has been completed within Bromsgrove to meet the strategic housing land requirements for the District as set out in policies D2 and D4 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan. These polices have since been superseded by PPS3 and the existing and emerging revised Regional Spatial Strategy. Sufficient information is contained within these policies to guide the distribution of housing development in Worcestershire.

Due to previous completions and current commitments, Bromsgrove has an identified housing supply of 7.29 years, 2.29 years over the requirement as set out in Planning Policy Statement (PPS3). To add to this oversupply with windfall development such as this development would reduce the ability of the district to control its housing provision and, as such, would prejudice the aims of the Regional Spatial Strategy B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites polices CF2, CF3 and CF6 and would clearly be contrary to the 'Plan, Monitor and Manage' approach to housing provision reflected in PPS3.

Traffic and Highway Implications

Although I note the views relating to highway safety raised by the Parish Council, the WCC(HP) raised no objection to the scheme.

Archaeological Issues

The WCC(CA) has commented that the Manor at Bentley was held before the Conquest by Leofric, Earl Echwin of Mercia, and there is documentary accounts of the sites continuous occupation until the Manor burned down after the Second World War. Such an historically important site requires careful and detailed evaluation in order to substantiate the historical records and to thoroughly assess the impact of any proposed development on the site. Consequently, in line with National, County and District policy, the County Archaeologist has recommended that further information on the archaeological significance of the site is required and an archaeological evaluation undertaken to define the presence, extent and significance of the archaeological deposits prior to determination . The archaeological evaluation will aim to provide objective and empirical evidence for the significance of the site and will therefore establish whether development on the Manor footprint is acceptable or not on archaeological grounds. The applicant's agent has been provided with a copy of the brief for implementation and submission.

In the interim period, no conclusive information has been given to indicate that the scheme at present would not protect a site of archaeological interest against a scheme that is likely to be detrimental to the site or its setting contrary to policies CTC.17, CTC.18 and CTC.19 of the WCSP, policies C36, C37 and C38 of the Bromsgrove District Local Plan and the guidance in PPG16. I will update Members at the meeting of the Committee on this issue.

Impact on the Amenity of Adjacent Occupiers

Given the isolated siting of the dwellinghouse, I do not consider the proposals raise any issues of residential amenity.

Conclusions

Notwithstanding the qualities of the proposals, I find it difficult to accept that the new house would satisfy the part of paragraph 11 of PPS7 that requires a new dwelling to protect and enhance the countryside.

I conclude that, whilst the design may, in isolation, be regarded as being innovative, outstanding and ground-breaking and reflecting the highest standards in contemporary architecture, the proposals would cause significant harm in this rural location and would seriously diminish the character and appearance of the Green Belt. This harm would, in my view, outweigh the ability to enhance the environment in the wider sense of reducing energy and the emission of greenhouse gases. It is my view therefore that the proposal does not reach the standard required to provide the special justification for an isolated B/2007/1101-DMB - Country house - Land at former Bentley Manor, Manor Road, Upper Bentley, Redditch - GL50 Properties & Landmarque Sites new house in the countryside in line with the advice in PPS7. As such, I therefore consider that the development would not satisfy the test in paragraph 11 of PPS7 that requires a new dwelling to protect and enhance the countryside and therefore cannot be deemed as an exception to national and local Green Belt policies.

Members should note that the policies in PPS7 (including the content of paragraph 11) complement, but do not replace or overrule, other national planning policies and should be read in conjunction with other relevant statements of national planning policy. In this respect, the overriding factor in this case relates to Green Belt policy.

I note the management proposals for the woodland are proposed. This would clearly aid biodiversity and link with the historical legacy of the site. However, I am not convinced that the existing land is degraded to such a degree and hence not in pressing need of improvement. It is my view that the land could be adequately managed without the need for a dwelling on the site.

In conclusion, I consider that the proposal for the new dwelling would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would cause unacceptable harm to the openness of the Green Belt. It would conflict with the advice in PPG2 and PPS7 and policies within the Worcestershire County Structure Plan and the Bromsgrove District Local Plan. There are no very special circumstances to justify granting planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION : that permission be REFUSED .

(a) The proposed development relates to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The cumulative impact of the scheme would significantly harm the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt and would be contrary to the aims and objectives of Green Belt Policy and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. No arguments have been put forward to support the development that amount to very special circumstances that would clearly outweigh the harm caused and therefore the proposal is contrary to policies QE1 and QE6 of the West Midlands Spatial Strategy, policies SD.2, D.12, D.38 and D.39 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan, policies DS2, DS9, DS13, C4 and S9 of the Bromsgrove District Local Plan and the provisions of PPG2 and PPS7.

(b) Sufficient housing has been completed within Bromsgrove to meet the strategic housing land requirements for the District. To add to this oversupply with windfall development such as this development would reduce the ability of the district to control its housing provision and as such would prejudice the aims of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy polices CF2, CF3 and CF6 and would clearly be contrary to the 'Plan, Monitor and Manage' approach to housing provision reflected in PPS3.

(c) No conclusive information has been given to indicate that the scheme at present would not protect a site of archaeological interest against a scheme that is likely to be detrimental to the site or its setting contrary to policy QE5 of the West Midlands Spatial Strategy, policies CTC.17, CTC.18 and CTC.19 of the WCSP, policies C36, C37 and C38 of the Bromsgrove District Local Plan and the guidance in PPG16.