It seems to me the right attitude towards this development depends on how wide a view of it is taken.
Avebury Parish Council judged it purely on it's own merits and nothinf else -
It is of good design, will look much better than what is there now, especially as this is one of the main routes to the World Heritage Site. It will improve the area, bring new life to the village and make a very run down area much nicer. The area can be well landscaped and it will soon lose the newness of the build.
There fore Avebury Parish Council fully support this plan and al members present are in favour of it.
http://mvm-planning.kennet.gov.uk/MVM.DMS/MVM.DMS/Planning%20Application/57000/57069/K57449F%20Avebury%20parish%20council%20comments%2017%2010%2007.pdf
Who could argue with that? Not me, for sure.
The heritage and conservation bodies that opposed it were as well aware of all that as Avebury PC no boubt but unlike Avebury PC they were obliged to recognise wider issues arising from the fact this isn't just a village but a World Heritage Site. ICOMOS, for instance, voiced the whole problem clearly -
ICOMOS-UK is recognised by Government as having special status with regard to World Heritage sites. Its parent body, ICOMOS, is official advisor to UNESCO on cultural World Heritage sites, as set out in the World Heritage Convention.
The UK has an obligation, under the terms of the World Heritage Convention, 1972, to protect the Avebury part of the Stonehenge and Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage site. This site does not exist as a planning entity, rather its boundaries reflects a collection of designations such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings, and conservation areas as well as parts that do not have discrete protection. Its overall protection is delivered through agreed Policies in local plans and in accordance with the agreed Management Plan for the site.
As has been set out clearly in the letter from the World Heritage Coordinator, Sarah Simmonds, this application is not in line with local planning policies. English Heritage has stated in their letter that this application must be determined in accordance with local and national policy guidance.
ICOMOS-UK strongly supports these views.
If this application is approved against the policies of local plans, then the overall protection of the World Heritage site is put at risk as these polices can no longer be relied upon to deliver the necessary protection as set out in the approved Management Plan for the site.
ICOMOS-UK appreciates that the existing garage may be considered as an eye-sore and that the development may be perceived by some to deliver ‘benefits’ in tidying up the site. However, it is in ICOMOS-UK’s view not acceptable to approve proposals that are against local planning policies on the grounds that they deliver benefits when the disbenefits they deliver are identified as being adverse impact on the values of the World Heritage site.
Protecting World Heritage sites means a commitment to sustaining the values for which the site was inscribed in the long term: these may not be compromised for short-term gains or expediency. There seem to us to be other ways to tidy up this site than approving a development that is out of line with policies to protect the World Heritage site and which could through setting a precedent undermine future protection through planning policies.
http://mvm-planning.kennet.gov.uk/MVM.DMS/MVM.DMS/Planning%20Application/57000/57069/K57449F%20ICOMOS-UK%20comments%2028_11_07.pdf
It's very tempting just to say, like Avebury PC did - it's better than what's there now - but I hope it doesn't go through in the end on that basis. It would be tantamount to ripping up the WHS management plan for the sake of a slogan and goodness knows what the long term results of that could be. I'm sure there are plenty of other developers willing to play the "we're improving the look of Avebury" card if they think that's the way to get round the management plan. Either this is just a normal village or it's not. If it's not then special controls must be maintained, not thwarted.
Rant over. Sorry.
