Latest Finlow Farm applications determined

Cheshire East have granted permission for the outbuilding at Finlows Bower Farm in Over Alderley to be re-sited.

The controversial development at Finlows Bower Farm includes the domestic outbuilding and neighbouring tennis court, which are visible from The Edge, and lie within the Green Belt and an area of County Value for Landscape. They were constructed, along with the two sets of entrance gates, without planning permission.

The timber frame of the building will be disassembled and sited on new foundations within the area of the garden curtilage. The present site of the outbuilding will then be landscaped and grassed in order to reinstate its former appearance as part of a paddock.

Christopher Widger, Countryside Manager at the National Trust, said "Moving the building to the north will have little effect upon its visual impact, including in terms of views from the land that the public has access to at Alderley Edge - the impact from the popular visitor viewpoint at Stormy Point would be little changed as a result of moving the outbuilding as proposed.

"The proposal remains contrary to Green Belt Policy given its adverse impact upon openess - in Green Belt terms the proposal remains 'inappropriate development' and no very special circumstances have been identified that would justify a departure from the normal approach to such a development."

The approved planning application (11/0226M) was a resubmission of the retrospective application 10/2972M, which was refused in October last year.

Cheshire East approved the application stating "the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Development Plan and is considered to be acceptable and "the visual impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area is considered to be acceptable."

The domestic outbuilding must be relocated within 2 months, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

An application for alterations to, and the retention of, the two pairs of entrance gates and associated screen planting at Finlow Bowers Farm was refused on March 23rd. This most recent application for the entrance gates, 11/0249M, was a retrospective planning application for retention of both pairs of gates which proposed to lower the height of all four sandstone gateposts by 300mm. This is the second retrospective planning application relating to the entrance gates on Mottram Road because application 10/1691M for the retention of one pair of gates was refused in August 2010.

Cheshire East Council have refused the application because "The retention of the two pairs of entrance gates with associated pillars, flank walls and close boarded fence sited along the boundary with Mottram Road, by reason of their size, siting and design, would form a visually obtrusive feature which would detract from the rural character and appearance of the Green Belt and Area of Special County Value within which they are located."

Earlier in the year a retrospective planning application for the engineering works which were carried out to level the land at Finlows Bower Farm to create the tennis court was also refused.

Application 10/3342M related to the area of paddock which has been covered with a hard surface to create a tennis court and proposed to remove the hard surface and replant the levelled area so it could then be used as a lawn tennis court for a maximum period of 28 days in any calendar year.

Cheshire East Council refused the retrospective application because it was deemed "an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt, as defined by the Development Plan" and "would cause harm to the objectives of those policies by virtue of engineering operations that would fail to safeguard the countryside from domestic encroachment."

The Council considered that no special circumstances exist to justify the approval of the tennis court, which they deem is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Tags:
Cheshire East Council, Finlow Farm, Planning Applications
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.

Vin Sumner
Thursday 21st April 2011 at 6:57 pm
Think there a bit of good news in all that... about time the planning laws were rethought to stop this sort of action at source... maybe if you build something extra it should be double or quits when its goes to appeal, so if you are not successful you have to take down twice as much.
Rachael Tilling
Friday 22nd April 2011 at 9:14 am
Thank goodness a bit of common sense has been applied, and these planning laws used for what they were intended...to protect our beautiful yet diminishing rural landscape. It's such a shame that certain individuals don't value the special nature of the countryside and think it's perfectly acceptable to dig up such a large chunk and replace it with an enormous piece of Kermit-coloured plastic. Have these people not heard of David Lloyd? It makes me wince every time I walk the dog up to Stormy Point and look down on that monstrosity, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Well done planning committee but please do make sure this order is fulfilled so that our beautiful views can be restored at Stormy Point.
James MacDonald
Friday 22nd April 2011 at 4:47 pm
I'm not convinced. The planning committee are too soft. The owners were told to remove the illegally built hard tennis court and replace with a grass court months ago but nothing has changed. Building without planning permission shows contempt towards planning laws and as such should be penalised appropriately.
Mike Barry
Tuesday 26th April 2011 at 5:59 pm
I can't recall my exact comments the last time this came up but it was along the lines of "for me, a tennis court is fine and doesn't really detract from the view but, the facts are the builders/lawyers have contravened planning permission." I also recall the phrase 'temporary use of' as if the court would be pulled-up at least least 3 times a year.

So, can I again request of the Council that, as a local, law-abiding and paying resident that non-compliant constructions are bulldozed and the land remediated at the owners' expense whether it is a Rafael or a Rooney, a Toure or a Tevez that live there or that it was developed by a 'Huntjones' or whoever or that it has 'Falcon & Naff' appliances. None is relevant. So why is this not sorted?.

Or, if that's too much to ask, can you liase with colleagues in this 'local joined-up thinking' that is Cheshire East to ask your bin men, sorry if that's not PC, to resist using my bottle recycling bin as a discus, albeit in preparation for 2012, so that is remains, roughly, outside my home?. Please chose the easier but option 1, surely, is a no-brainer.