The tennis court at Finlow Farm, which has been constructed without planning permission and broken up the uninterrupted natural views across the Cheshire Plain from Stormy Point, looks likely to be grassed over.
A retrospective planning application has been submitted for the engineering works which were carried out to level the land at Finlows Bower Farm. This application relates to the area of paddock/grazing land which is located south of the residential curtilage and has been covered with a hard surface to create a tennis court. Whilst the application was actually submitted in August it has only recently appeared on the list of new planning applications.
It is proposed that the hard surface will be removed from the site and grass replanted in this area. However, the level grass area would be retained to be used as a lawn tennis court for a maximum period of 28 days in any calendar year.
The tennis court has been built outside of the residential boundary so the planning application recognises that, "As the site is not within the residential curtilage, its use as a permanent domestic tennis court is bound to be deemed inappropriate development within the Green Belt. To this end, it is proposed to remove the existing hard service and cover the whole area with topsoil and turf. The site would thus be restored to a green appearance, appropriate in such a countryside setting, although the levels and contours of the land that have recently been established with engineering operations would be retained."
"The use of the land would thus revert to countryside land outside the residential curtilage, albeit with a flat and level surface. This grassed area could then be used for lawn tennis purposes for a maximum of 28 days per year, without requiring planning permission as such temporary uses do not involve a material change in the use of land."
The planning application goes on to state that, "The requirements of policy GC2 would thus be respected as, once the hard surface has been replaced with grass, the engineering operations would maintain openness, would not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt and would contribute to the achievement of the objectives for use of land in Green Belts. This is because the newly landscaped area would provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation and would retain and enhance an attractive landscape near to where people live."
This latest planning application regarding the tennis court and engineering operations, reference 10/3342M, can be viewed on the Cheshire East website and the closing date for comments is 5th January 2011.
As reported last month, a domestic outbuilding and entrance gates have also been constructed within the grounds of Finlow Farm without planning permission. Retrospective applications for both have since been refused.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
However, there are two things I do not understand about this:
I have assumed that, at the end of a multi-million project like this, Macclesfield Borough Council would have inspected, on completion, that the "work done" complies with the "work planned." Clearly, I am totally mistaken.
Secondly, exactly what does a 'Retrospective Application' mean for what is a major scope change to a new-build? I can understand if there needs to be a re-route for drains, services, drive etc. once the project had started but, a "tennis court and extra buildings"? Please! Incremenatal drift? I don't think so especially as it was built during the summer and application was August.
Why has this project got to this position? I'd appreciate views from those who know as I don't. Equally, as for the 'compromise' (and I suspect I am completely naïve on this) but how can you retain a tennis court, grass or otherwise, which I would understand to be a permanent feature, on the basis that it will be only used up to 28 days a year AND "does not involve a material change in the use of land"? I've seen many a rabbitt as I walk throught the Edge but never before sporting a racket and 'new balls' on serve.
I just wish the Planning Function had some and rip it up!
Open observation to the owner " You cannot be serious!!!!!!!!"
There was no chalk on the planning line, so the court is out. And the illegal gate posts...., a double fault.
Served up the perfect opportunity for the Council planners to smash back an unreturnable volley, simply put, the court has no planning permission, it has to go.
28 days use, guess that will mission creep to 29 in a leap year.
What's the betting that despite the foot fault, they obtain retrospective permission or get it on appeal?