Garden House, Lakes Road

[CTCREP]

Anyone can set themselves up to be a protest movement and give it a fancy name, it could be argued that is what we did when we set up Cycle Stockport many years ago when we realised that attending SMBC's Official Cycle User Group was virtually a waste of time because, as far as we could see, it was just a box ticking exercise to show the Council was consulting us.  Although our aim was the same as the "present" Government ie to make it possible for commuters to cycle to work etc. Stockport planners have always chosen to ignore our advice and proposals.

I sincerely trust the Council will give the same disregard to this Civic Society which appears to have no interest in improving Marple for the majority of the community.  We cyclists would like to see more people being able to access Marple, preferably without using their cars, in order to enjoy the facilities in the area and so benefit all the business etc that comes with increasing visitors.

[andrewbowden]

Have Civic Society members ever been down Lakes Road?  if they had, they would know that it is wide, and its generous supply of potholes works admirably well as traffic calming. Walkers, horse riders and vehicles all co-exist well down there - we are one happy family!     And the Garden House has its own huge car park. 

Those potholes are less good when you're cycling down on your bike    Not planning on doing that again any time soon!

But then that's the Civic Society for you - many of us have learned that if you find yourself agreeing with the Civic Society, you're probably wrong 

That's my philosophy in a nutshell! 

[Dave]

Thanks Mark - that's interesting and throws some light on the position. The decision certainly looks to be worth appealing, as some of the reasons for rejecting the application look debatable, to say the least. Especially reason 1, as a change of use to outdoor recreation is in fact included in the National Planning Policy Framework as permissible on green belt land.

But above all, what's surely needed is for the applicant to sit down (OK, have a Zoom meeting) with officers from SMBC Planning, and get their advice as to what he needs to do to meet the legitimate concerns of the Planning Committee.  Talking to the MEN doesn't achieve anything. 

But whilst the Council's decision may be debatable, there is nothing debatable in the Civic Society's statement.  In fact, it's mostly nonsense!  Especially the bit about 'excess traffic and parking at times when the site is busy, and there is danger and difficulty to other users of the Lakes Road such as walkers, cyclists and horse-riders trying to reach the Roman Lakes, arising from, in places, its narrow and dangerous condition.'  Have Civic Society members ever been down Lakes Road?  if they had, they would know that it is wide, and its generous supply of potholes works admirably well as traffic calming. Walkers, horse riders and vehicles all co-exist well down there - we are one happy family!     And the Garden House has its own huge car park. 

But then that's the Civic Society for you - many of us have learned that if you find yourself agreeing with the Civic Society, you're probably wrong 

[admin]

As far as I can ascertain from the Planning Portal, below are the documented reasons for the refusal. There are at least 3 planning applications on the portal but this seems to be the main one:

PARTICULARS OF DECISION

The Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council hereby gives notice in pursuance of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that FULL PLANNING PERMISSION HAS BEEN REFUSED for the carrying out of the development described above, for the following reasons:

1: The application site lies within the Green Belt as defined by Saved Policy GBA1.1, "Extent of Green Belt", and the Proposals Map DPD. The proposed development, including the material change of use, would not be for one of the purposes stated in Saved Policy GBA1.2, "Control of Development in Green Belt", of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review, therefore, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of that policy and advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.
 
2: Insufficient information relating to highways and transportation issues has been submitted in support of the application, in accordance with the requirements of T-1 'Transport and Development' of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD, in order to allow the proposed development to be adequately assessed, having regard to the impact of the development on the highway network, car parking demand and provision, how the site will be serviced and how the site will be accessed by pedestrians.  In the absence of this information, it has not been possible to determine that the proposal would comply with Policies CS9, 'Transport and Development', T-1 'Transport and Development', T-2, 'Parking in Developments'' and T-3, 'Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network', of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD.

3: The development, including the material change in the use of the land, fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Goyt Valley Landscape Character Area, contrary to Core Strategy Policy SIE-3Protecting, Safeguarding &   Enhancing the Environment, Saved UDP Review Policies LCR1.1 'Landscape Character Areas' and LCR1.1a 'The Urban Fringe including the River Valleys' and advice contained within  the National Planning Policy Framework.

4: Statement under Article 35(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: S004 -  Refused (including Committee refusals contrary to Officer advice)The proposal would not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area nor does it comply with the development plan and therefore does not comprise sustainable development. There were no amendments to the scheme, or conditions which could reasonably have been imposed, which could have made the development acceptable and it   was therefore not possible to approve the application. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF.

It seems that Marple Civic Society has softened their view a little (but not very much) in their August Newsletter:

Garden House: appeal pending

Marple Civic Society has considered this application and its predecessors over the past three years and still concludes that many, though not all, of the rural interpretation and educational features of the proposals would be in an appropriate location in the green belt; and that it has now proven value as a community facility in Marple.

Perhaps the makeshift approach to the development of the site may be preferable to avoid too great an impact on the Green Belt location; but the combination of the unresolved external issues is too harmful to be acceptable. Local residents are troubled by excess traffic and parking at times when the site is busy, and there is danger and difficulty to other users of the Lakes Road such as walkers, cyclists and horse-riders trying to reach the Roman Lakes, arising from, in places, its narrow and dangerous condition. There are also problems with the junction of Lakes Road with Arkwright Road.

The great benefit of a sustainable access to the site along a potential public footpath along the River Goyt from Marple Bridge remains unresolved for legal and practical reasons. There are are also questions about the possible issue of contaminated land given the previous use of the site for refuse disposal.

The Civic Society feels that it cannot give whole-hearted support to the proposal before at least one (and preferably more) of the above issues needs to be settled beyond doubt before consideration can be given to allowing the site to operate without meeting normal planning standards. The Society has forwarded comments in these terms to Stockport Council and the Planning Inspectorate in respect of the appeal, which is expected to be heard at a public inquiry later this year.

When will we find out?

This should all be thoroughly tested during the Public Inquiry, which, according to the last Marple Area Committee meeting, is set for 3 days commencing on 13 January 2021 (venue to be confirmed).

I don't know if the process can be attended by the public or (more likely due to Covid) followed on-line. 

[Condate]

That is possible for the council to deny planning permission for what is clearly an appropriate use of land in an appropriate position, while allowing housing to be built to gross excess suggests there is something badly wrong with the planning system.

[Dave]

Point taken Andrew, and I agree that due process should be observed. But I hope the council’s reasons for rejecting the planning application were more convincing than the wishy-washy excuses reported in the MEN.

[andrewbowden]

Personally I feel there's a lot of emotional manipulation regarding the Garden House.  Tugging of heart strings ("It's for the children!".  "Oh won't someone please think of the children!")

And that's what really concerns me.  A lot of emotion and heart string tugging is being deployed to try and subvert due process.  The council rejected the planning proposal.  But they built it anyway.  Why didn't they go through the motions of appeal WITHOUT having opened?  Because they know full well they wouldn't have the support from the public.  They had to open to try and get the support.  That's why I feel like it's manipulation.


I'm not particularly pro or anti the Garden House in concept.  And if a public enquiry finds in their favour, fine because the planning process will have been followed.  If it doesn't, fine because the planning process will have been followed.

But if the public inquiry doesn't find in their favour, does anyone really think they will comply?  Because I am not feeling that it's very likely.

[Dave]

Graham writes that the Garden house 'has been refused planning permission many times for justifiable reasons.'

Do we know what those reasons were?   That MEN report says they included ''inappropriate development of the green belt', and that the Garden House 'does not enhance the Goyt Valley landscape and has led to traffic problems'.

Re the first of those reasons (inappropriate development), here are the government guidelines:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/13-protecting-green-belt-land

Key passages include:

134. Green Belt serves 5 purposes:

(a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

(b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

(c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

(d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

(e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

I can't see how the Garden House is in conflict with any of those.  Some might argue that it doesn't comply with purpose c, re encroachment on the countryside, but hey, that land is a former rubbish tip!  And it's hardly a beautifully scenic bit of countryside is it.   

Then further on in the guidance you get this bit:   

146. Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. These include material changes in the use of land (such as changes of use for outdoor sport or recreation)

Recreation is what the Garden House is about - and it's healthy outdoor recreation. Kids love it - the animals, the toys, the zip line, the lot.

As for this bit 'it does not enhance the Goyt Valley landscape and has led to traffic problems', of course it doesn't enhance the landscape, but it isn't meant to.  And let's be honest, that scruffy bit of the valley is not exactly an area of outstanding natural beauty is it!  As for traffic problems - what traffic problems?  As Howard says, there are so many potholes down there that traffic is pretty sparse.

So what's the problem, SMBC?

[wheels]

Graham is entirely correct this business set uo without planning permission in an entirely inappropriate location and has continually been refused planning permission.  No other business would get away with this it's a throughly unpleasant operation and should go.well done SMBC for refusing permission.

[Graham]

The fact remains that the “Garden House” business is operating without planning permission and has been refused planning permission many times for justifiable reasons.

[CTCREP]

I agree whole heatedly.  At one time Marple was virtually a holiday retreat for Manchester people. Weekend huts up in the hills, and boat rides on the canal and at Roman Lakes.  Marple needs its visitors to help the shops and other businesses in the area.

There are those who automatically oppose anything they hadn’t thought of themselves, and as for the Council, did you know that not all that long ago, when Stockport Council took overall control of the individual Councils in the area,  the residents of Compstall and the remnants of Compstall Council had to fight hard to prevent  what is now recognised as the most visited park in Stockport from being turned into a housing estate!!  It is difficult not to believe it is still their intention.

And as for paying to upgrade th Lakes Road, well they have been doing much the same for several house dwellers in the Mellor Strines area by using a Government Flood Repair Grant in an area that is never likely to be flooded.

[Howard]

We walk through this area frequently and think it's a valuable attraction. I can't think of a better use for the area - surely you wouldn't build houses there?

As the council are citing innappropriate use of green belt, I imagine housing is unlikely, especially so close to the river and theat someone would need to pay for the upgrade of Lakes Road which is pothole central.

Personally, I can't think of a better use for the place at the moment, so let it stay.

[Cyberman]

The Garden House is in the news again. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/much-loved-community-farm-facing-19096523. Looks like there will be a public enquiry in January.

We walk through this area frequently and think it's a valuable attraction. I can't think of a better use for the area - surely you wouldn't build houses there?

Perhaps the owner could change his name by deed poll to Dominic Cummings. Seems to work wonders in planning disputes.

[admin]

The appeal against the enforcement notice to close The Garden House is now live.

You can see it here: https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?CaseID=3179841&CoID=0

The procedure to be followed is an inquiry and local people can also make a representation via that link above using the button at the top right.

Before doing that, it will be worth reading the Government guide to taking part here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/planning-appeals-dealt-with-by-an-inquiry-taking-part

This is a great opportunity for people with views on the Garden House to make them known and have them considered as part of the inquiry.

It looks like the deadline for making comments is 3rd October 2017.

[admin]

Latest news on the Garden House is that an appeal was submitted on 11th July. This gives a stay of execution while the appeal process is followed.

The Garden House has also launched an appeal for help with funding needed for the appeal, which people can support if they choose:

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/SaveTheGardenHouseFarmAppeal