Chitty Chitty Bang Bang defeats enabling development

Higham Park is an eighteenth century mansion with a colourful history. “Higham”, as it was traditionally known, was bought in 1910 by Count Zobrowski. Post WWI he bought defunct aero-engines from army surplus stores to convert into racing cars. He died racing at Monza in 1924. The cars were probably built in the stables and housed in the Coach House in the walled kitchen garden. It is said that an engine is buried in an adjacent chalk pit underneath questionable detritus from the wartime occupation of Higham by the Army and its post-war use as a maternity hospital. Ian Fleming lived in Bekesbourne in the late 1950s and could walk through the hospital grounds to Bridge, through which to this day the 007 bus runs between Canterbury and Dover. Zobrowski’s cars provided the inspiration for Ian Fleming to write Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Higham’s association with popular culture does not end there. In the 1970s Blue Peter raised money to build a house for the disabled, sited in the walled garden near the Coach House.

However Higham fell on hard times. The estate was sold off separately which now means that there is insufficient income for its upkeep: the refrigerated fruit packing sheds across the road from the kitchen garden are an independent operation. In 1995 Higham was rescued by two courageous ladies who started its restoration and opened it to visitors. In 2006 it was sold to another colourful character who decided it was “ripe for development”.

Local people acknowledged need for some rebuilding, but not damaging the character of the Coach House; felling mature trees: demolishing the Blue Peter Bungalow and other sound properties; removing parts of the kitchen garden wall; erecting grandiose neo-classical villas on the ex-kitchen garden; and silencing the packing sheds, which provide local employment, by means of noise abatement orders. The pretentious lodges and ornate gates by the Bridge entrance would “lock-in” the inhabitants of nearby agricultural workers cottages. Higham would go from having been a local amenity to a gated community, totally out of keeping with impoverished East Kent.

Although Higham is in Bekesbourne parish, Bridge would have suffered from the development’s traffic. The parish councils of Bridge, and Bekesbourne with Patrixbourne both objected. The latter proved vital because unless the parish, in which the proposal is actually located, comments at the development control stage it does not have the right to appear at any appeal. Fortunately the parishes had joined forces. Even so they were they were not “statutory parties” and thus had no right to be sent the documents: as the law stands “the grown-ups” are restricted to the owner or tenant of the land or adjoining neighbours. To achieve this they would have had to apply at an earlier stage for Rule 6 status[1]. Fortunately Canterbury City Council was cooperative in supplying key documents so the parishes could prepare their case, and both parties united in strong opposition at the inquiry.

Higham is a Grade II* listed building: only 6% of listed buildings are II* or Grade 1. It is in a conservation area and the site lies in the North Downs AONB. A very important fact was that a previous Inspector had refused a smaller application ten years earlier on the grounds that this would detract from the setting of the mansion. As it is difficult for an inspector to disagree with another one if the policies haven’t changed, readers should file past decision letters: they could be useful!

The excuse for the development was “enabling development”. This is often seen by councils as a Trojan horse, so it is important to understand the beast. The authority on the subject is English Heritage’s Policy Statement Practical Guide to Assessment Enabling Development and the Conservation of Heritage Assets (2001). To qualify enabling development has to fulfil a number of criteria. It excludes works which:

• would be permitted under established planning policy
  
• “would detract from the archaeological, architectural, historic, landscape or biodiversity interest of the asset, or materially harm its setting"
  
• and are more than is essential to secure the future of the heritage asset.
  

On the financial side the inspector pointed out that there was no evidence to show that other means had been explored in order to raise the money: no sound financial case had been made. Thus it is not easy to make the case for “Enabling Development”.

Overall the inspector concluded that the proposed development of substantial houses would compete with the listed building and be a blot on a protected landscape. Higham now has changed hands. Amid the uncertainty about its future the councils can rely on a strong decision in their favour by the Secretary of State.


[1] Under Statutory Instrument 2000. No.1626. This absurd situation  is being tackled by NALC’s legal team.

Contact

Tel: 01227 471367
Mobile: 07710 457751 

Email: [email protected]

Planning consultancy for Town Councils | Planning Consultancy for Parish Councils |  Planning Consultancy for People | Planning Consultancy for Businesses | Planning legal advice

Wendy Le Las Associates 2011