|
Re
The Walled Garden, Nantwich, and the meeting of April 22,
2008.
The Committee of this Society has
asked me to make the following comments about the meeting which you
arranged with the Dowhill Group and other interested parties for our
information.
1, We thank you for
informing us of the proposals by the Dowhill Group to build within the
Walled Garden and for allowing us to meet with the proposed
developers. We also thank you for the full notes of the meeting,
which you produced so promptly.
2, We do not
have any quarrel with the Dowhill Group who we realise are anxious to
capitalise on their purchase of the Walled Garden and have tried to treat
the matter sensitively whilst still making a profit.
3, We consider
that the present situation has been arrived at because the Crewe and
Nantwich Borough Council has abrogated its responsibilities towards this
Listed Building over the last ten years by not issuing the necessary
notices to the various owners of this garden.
4, The
original planning permission for Kingsley Fields excluded the Walled
Garden from development and did not show any building within this garden.
The developers at that time unreservedly accepted planning condition 11,
included in this permission, to restore the walls. This was
specifically included within this outline approval by the Council to
“ensure that the Walled Garden, which is a listed building, is preserved
and incorporated within the development adequately.” To allow
developers to build 387 houses on the Kingsley Fields site without
insisting upon the repair and reinstatement of the Elizabethan walls of
the Walled Garden clearly shows a lack of concern by the Borough
Council. This large development should have adequately funded the
restoration of the whole of this garden.
5, We also consider
that the Borough Council is in breach of its own policy which states that
it “will seek to maintain green spaces within the built environment where
they are useful and attractive”. The restored Walled Garden will clearly
be a very useful and attractive asset to the Borough. The Borough
Council’s own policy (5.49) states that Listed Buildings “should, wherever
possible, be maintained in the use for which they were originally
designed.” Clearly an Elizabethan Walled Garden was not designed for
housing.
6, The drawing
(Inset 2A) included in the relevant Borough Council 1999-2005 Local Plan
showed the Walled Garden to be outside the Kingsley Fields residential
development area (RES.1.5). The drawing included in the present
Borough Council Replacement Local Plan 2011 also shows the Walled Garden
to be outside the Kingsley Fields residential development area (RES.
1(5)).
7,
The Nantwich Walled Garden Society has recently approached the Planning
Ombudsman for a ruling about these matters and I attach a copy of our
letter to him for your information.
8,
The Society has drawn up a full Restoration Plan for the garden and this
is also attached.
9,
The Nantwich Walled Garden Society aims are set out in our constitution of
June 13, 2004 and are:
a) To prevent the
development of housing on the site of the Old Walled Garden, off Welsh
Row, which was once part of the gardens of Townsend
House.
b) To ensure that the
Elizabethan walls of the garden are fully restored and
reinstated.
c) To restore the garden
in a way that reflects its history so that it can be left in perpetuity
for the enjoyment of the residents and visitors to
Nantwich.
This Society will not agree with
the building of housing within the Walled Garden and will continue to
fight for its restoration.
Enclosed:
Copy of letter to
Ombudsman.
Restoration
Plan.
Copy of letter from Barrister re
the last Planning Application.
Copies to:
Paul Ancell, Chief
Executive.
Philippa Lowe, Head of Planning
(Development).
Elizabeth Rodgers, Conservation
Officer.
| 