Appeal 6000692

The appeal is dismissed.

I saw that the observation wheel has been erected and that the application is clearly retrospective. I have dealt with the appeal on its planning merits and removed the term ‘retrospective’ from the description of development as it is not a definition of development.

I have used the appeal site address taken from the application form. This also corresponds with that used in the Council’s decision notice and appeal form. However, the appellant’s Design & [name] and Appeal Statement refer to Trentham Shopping Village. However, it is clear that the Trentham Retail Village and Trentham Shopping Village are the same and their interchanging usage matters not in this instance for knowing where the appeal site is.

The Council’s second refusal reason relates to the harm caused to the [name]* listed Registered Park and Garden that is Trentham Gardens1 (the RPG). However, the Council’s Officer Report refers to the site also being located within the Trentham Park Conservation Area (the TCA) and within the setting of “several listed buildings and structures associated with the historic [name]”. The report concludes that there is harm to the significance of both the RPG and the TCA. However, the [name] makes little assessment of the effect of the development on the TCA and nothing about the setting of the nearby associated listed buildings.

As decision maker, the statutory duties set out under sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 (the Act) require me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the [listed] building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and to 1 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1001168 pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that [conservation] area.

There is no similar statutory duty with regards [name] and Gardens. However, with reference to paragraph 213b) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) they are designated heritage assets, with [name]* RPGs being of the highest significance along with [name] and II* listed buildings. Pursuant to Framework paragraph 212 “great weight” should be given to the heritage asset’s conservation (with the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be).

The Council is clearly aware of various listed buildings in the vicinity of the appeal site, as it mentions them. In the Questionnaire it specifies two listed buildings whose settings are affected, namely the [name] “Remains of [name]: orangery, sculpture gallery and clock tower”2 and the [name]* “Remains of [name]: the grand entrance and conservatory”3.

The appellant’s Heritage Statement, which was submitted with the application and replicated again in the appellant’s appeal statement, considers these same listed buildings, in addition to a number of others that have the potential for their settings to be affected, namely the [name] “Remains of [name]: former stable block and service quarters”4, the [name]* Church of [name] and All Saints5 and the [name]* Sutherland Monument6, as well as the TCA. The appellant scoped out a number of other listed buildings (there are some 35 listed buildings) and I have no reason to disagree.

The Council has therefore had the opportunity to comment on these heritage assets as part of the application and appeal process. However, the Council has not submitted an appeal statement but relies on its [name]. Therefore there is no prejudice to the parties in my consideration of the various designated heritage assets as part of my duties. For the avoidance of doubt I have confined my assessment to the above mentioned listed buildings.

The main issues in this appeal are: • The effect of the proposal on the special interest and significance of the heritage assets; • Whether the appeal development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and the development plan, and the effect of the appeal development on the openness of the Green Belt and purposes of including land within it; and • If the development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, would the harm, by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. 2 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1038987 3 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1190243 4 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1293887 5 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1190214 6 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1038951

The development comprises an observation wheel that has been erected on land that forms part of the overspill car park at Trentham Retail Village, at the southern end of the ‘village’. The wheel is aligned north south and has a diameter of 31 metres, with the maximum height of the installation reaching about 33 metres. It operates between the hours of 10am and 9pm, seven days a week and the wheel is illuminated with non-flashing lights after dark, but lights switched off at 9pm. The lighting is aligned along the multiple spokes of the wheel and parts of the cabins are trimmed with small low-voltage LED lights. From the evidence, the observation wheel was installed in October 2024, and the subsequently submitted retrospective application sought planning permission for a temporary 18-month period until 12 April 2026. Heritage issues

The appeal site is located within the RPG and the TCA, whose boundaries largely coincide, although the TCA boundary is a little larger and includes the Trentham Retail Village. The appeal site is also within the influence of a number of listed buildings that are historically associated with [name] and Gardens, as part of the [name], and whose special interest and significance are thus entwined.

[name] and [name] were established in the 16th century on the site of a 12th [name] priory south of [site address] , by a local wool merchant [name] and remained in the family’s ownership (later known as the Leveson-Gower family and the Dukes of Sutherland) until 1979. The RPG contains the remains of a large country house and a landscaped park designed for the owners. The house and grounds have undergone a number of redesigns and remodelling during their lifetime. The main remaining elements of the RPG are from the mid-18th century by Lancelot ‘[name] and the mid-19th century Italianate pleasure grounds by influential Victorian architect and gardener [name], who played a significant role in popularising the Italianate style. Later, comments from the influential horticulturist [name] and the work of the head gardener [name], appointed in 1841, brought Trentham to the public’s attention and the gardens became well known for being a showcase for innovative and experimental planting and also gained a reputation as a teaching garden.

By the early 1900s pollution of the [name], which ran through the site, had made the house uninhabitable and it was largely demolished in about 1912, but remains of the grand west entrance and conservatory; the orangery, sculpture gallery and clock tower; and stable block and service quarters still survive, although I saw that some are in a poor state of repair and fenced off for safety reasons. In the 1920s the entrance lodges were relocated to [site address] , where they stand today, to mark the entrance to [address] in their use as public pleasure grounds, marketed as ‘The Versailles of the Midlands’ and known as the ‘Playground of the Potteries’. Since the sale of the estate in 1979 and since 1996 it has operated as a commercially owned leisure attraction. In the early 21st century the site of the former kitchen garden was developed as a commercial retail park (Trentham Retail Village). Some of Barry’s upper garden terraces have been restored and the lower terrace reimagined.

Central to the RPG is the long lake. The remains of the [name] (which are now a series of listed ruins) and formal gardens sit at its northern end, and the Sutherland Monument on high ground to the south overlooking the Estate. Either side is landscaped parkland, broadly bounded by the M6 motorway to the west and the A34 to the east. The RPG has a relative peace and tranquillity, where one can walk and be immersed in attractive gardens and parkland, yet its proximity to the urban fringes of [site address] and the adjacent Retail Village make it popular with visitors.

Insofar as the appeal is concerned, the significance of the RPG is largely historic, derived from the surviving layout and designed landscaped parkland and gardens associated with a country house owned by the same family for several centuries, with associative interest in terms of the notable architects and garden designers who have been involved in its design and layout, reflecting the changes in garden design over time.

The RPG includes the appeal site and surrounding car parking for the Retail Village (but excludes the Retail Village itself) and extends up to the A34 [site address] . Originally the appeal site was part of the RPG and contributed to the setting of the listed buildings. Over time its contribution has been eroded by significant subsequent development, such as the modern Retail Village and the extensive hard surfaced car parks. I saw that the appeal site is located on part of the Retail Village car park in the vicinity of the retail units, with a belt of mature trees behind which forms the boundary of the main body of the RPG that one has to pay to visit. Hence there is currently a visual and physical disconnect between the appeal site and the main body of the RPG such that it makes a neutral contribution to its significance.

The character and appearance of the TCA and thus its special interest and significance, which is inexorably linked with the RPG, are in part derived from the same historic landscaped parkland created around a large country house, with associations with influential architects and garden designers over time who had a hand in building and remodelling the house and gardens, and the large number of listed buildings, most of which are historically and architecturally associated with [name] and the surrounding parkland. As with the RPG, the Retail Village and car parks have already degraded the heritage asset, such that the appeal site currently makes a limited contribution to its significance.

The RPG provides the main setting to the listed buildings, most of which form the remains of [name], namely the [name]* listed “Remains of [name]: the grand entrance and conservatory”; the [name] listed “Remains of [name]: former stable block and service quarters” and the [name] listed “Remains of [name]: orangery, sculpture gallery and clock tower”, which are located close to each other as they form part of the former country house. Their significance is largely derived from their remaining architectural and historic interests as a significant example of a large, country house specifically designed, built and remodelled by its owners over time, and set within a designed landscape with which they have a functional relationship. Their age, traditional construction and materials, surviving historic fabric, ornate detailing and association with influential architects make important contributions in these regards. Whilst they have become somewhat disconnected from each other over time following demolition of the main Hall and more modern interventions and re-arrangement of the Estate, including the relocation of the entrance to [site address] , they still retain a unity as a result of their shared and consistent [name] architectural style and grandeur as part of the surviving Hall and formal grounds and wider parkland which make important contributions to their setting and thus significance.

The Grade II* Church of [name] and [name] lies to the west of the remains of [name], but within the RPG and TCA. It was built in the mid-1800s by the eminent Victorian architect [name] in the Perpendicular style and incorporates surviving late Norman arcades with 12th-century capitals and mediaeval shafts, probably from the previous priory church. The Church is not a ruin and is still in use. Its special interest and significance are largely derived from its architectural and historic interest and association with [name] as part of a designed landscape and the Estate as a whole.

Relevant to the appeal, special interest and significance are also derived, in part, from the Church’s setting. Having early origins, the setting of the site of the Church has changed over time. It now comprises its immediate surrounds of an enclosed and clearly demarcated churchyard on its northern side, with the remains of [name] to the east and its wider setting to the south from the gardens from which it is now experienced and appreciated as an ecclesiastical structure within the landscaped grounds of the RPG, although its visibility is greater now that parts of the Hall have been removed over time.

The Grade II* listed Sutherland Monument, was added to the Estate in 1836 as a memorial to the 1st Duke of Sutherland, is sited beyond the southern end of the lake on high ground on [address]. With the figure standing on a five-metre tall tapering column of limestone it has been purposefully located to look north over the [name]. It can also be seen from the RPG, and I saw it was also visible at times from the M6 motorway to the west, such is its location, size and imposing presence. It was made by leading sculptor [name], to the same design for one he was preparing for the Duke’s estate in Sutherland, Scotland. The Duke was a nationally important figure, who at the time was the greatest landowner in the country with considerable influence in the world of art, politics and industry. The epitaph on the monument provides an insight into how his family wished him to be remembered, which is in contrast to his infamous involvement in the [name]. The special interest and significance of the Monument are largely architectural and historic as an example of a deliberate act of memorial associated with a powerful man of a longstanding family in the area and their extensive estate, with associative interest with a leading sculptor of the times. The Monument on top of the hill offers views up the lake to the gardens on its northern shore and to the church and remains of the Hall, as well as the surrounding countryside (with the conurbation of [site address] beyond), that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of the Estate and the RPG as a whole. It also has group value with a number of listed buildings on the [name].

The RPG allows the Church, remains of the Hall and the Sutherland Monument to be appreciated within the settings most were designed to be a part of. They therefore also have group value as part of the numerous buildings erected within the [name]. [name] was a house of high status with long views from it and the presence of extensive and designed surrounds for personal recreation. At the same time, the listed buildings provide a context from which to appreciate and understand the RPG. The combined effect of the remains of [name] and other listed buildings and its surrounding parkland means the nature, magnitude and scale of the Estate is still readily apparent and makes a meaningful and positive contribution to their special interest and significance.

However, the appeal site cannot be seen from the various listed buildings due to the intervening landscaping and mature trees. The appeal site is already located within a degraded, much changed and more peripheral part of the RPG and TCA. From the evidence and my observations the appeal site makes a neutral contribution to the setting and thus significance of these listed buildings.

The observation wheel is taller than the adjacent mature trees of the RPG and rises a considerable distance above the tree tops. The wheel can be seen from various parts of the RPG. [name] saw that from some parts of the RPG almost the entire circular wheel is visible though the trees and from the other side of the lake, which I accept would be lessened to some degree in the months when the trees are in leaf. The wheel introduces a ‘fun fair’ element to the overall surroundings, an incongruous modern feature in an historic landscaped and parkland setting, and at odds with the general sense of quiet recreation that can be enjoyed from the RPG and walking around some of the listed ruins and gardens. Views of the wheel in this historic landscaped setting take away from the experience of the RPG and weakens the authenticity of how the RPG and the TCA are appreciated and experienced. This in turn harms their significance.

[address] are open all year round, but generally close at dusk. However, during the Winter the gardens open after dusk for special events, such as the [name]. The illuminated wheel would therefore be visible from the RPG during hours of darkness in the Winter, contributing further to its incongruity.

The setting of the listed buildings is largely associated with the RPG which provides a planned and formal landscape area within which they are appreciated and have a functional connection. The fact the wheel can be seen or glimpsed above the tree line, at whatever distance from the listed buildings, erodes the essence of that landscaped setting, introducing a modern utilitarian structure at odds with its surroundings. I appreciate that there may be only glimpsed or discrete views from some of the listed buildings towards the wheel, however in my view it is still sufficient to harm the significance of those listed buildings.

From the Sutherland Monument, despite the separation distance, scale of the landscape, and the extensive views including beyond towards the golf course and [site address] , I saw that about half of the wheel was clearly visible in the same view as the lake, even on a grey rainy day. It stood above the belt of mature trees and appeared as an isolated vertical structure, as the Retail Village and car parks were not visible from the Monument. It was an incongruous feature in a large, landscaped setting, reducing the authenticity of how the Monument is experienced. Illumination of the wheel during hours of darkness, would accentuate the incongruity with an alien shape lit up above the tree line, even if the Monument is not very visited at night. The observation wheel would harm the setting and hence significance of the listed monument.

Historic England’s advice ‘[name] in [name], does not preclude them from the historic environment. However, it highlights a number of factors that can be important factors in assessing impact, such as the length of time the structure is erected – in this instance it is not a couple of weeks or months, for example during the summer, but a year and a half - and this covers several seasons, including winters when trees are not in leaf, thus affecting visibility.

Overall, I find the development harms the significance of the RPG, the TCA and fails to preserve the setting of the listed buildings. The proposal would thus fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the provisions of the Framework.

The Framework states that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource. Paragraphs 212 and 213 of the Framework state that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification.

In finding harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, Framework paragraphs 214 and 215 require the magnitude of that harm to be assessed. Given the nature and extent of the proposed development against the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) I find the harm to both the significance of the RPG, TCA and the various listed buildings, would be towards the middle of ‘less than substantial’. Even so, a finding of ‘less than substantial’ harm still carries considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires the harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

There are some economic benefits from the creation of 2-4 jobs. The development offers the [name] and local area an additional short-term visitor attraction, which can help increase visitor footfall and help maintain the status of Trentham Retail Village and [address] as an acknowledged and established tourist destination.

However, any jobs created are part time with short-term opportunities. It is unclear whether the jobs have been taken by local people or are existing employees of the appellant’s amusement business. In any event, with the small numbers involved any employment benefits would be very limited. There is no substantive evidence to indicate what additional footfall the observation wheel brings to the [name] and Retail Village, and what additional revenue the wheel has brought to the RPG, the Retail Village and to the wider local economy. There is an admission charge to visit [address] RPG and a separate change to go on the wheel - indeed visitors can pay to go on the wheel without visiting the Retail Village or RPG because the car parks are free.

There is no case put forward to suggest that the development is enabling development and that any revenue is directed towards the restoration/repair of the listed buildings at [name], some of which I understand are at risk, or to the up keep of the RPG, or to the continued viability of the Retail Village. The heritage assets and Trentham Retail Village are not within the appellant’s control and there is no mechanism or legal agreement proposed or in place, as far as I am aware, that would secure or ring-fence any monies or works for the repair/restoration/up keep of the heritage assets or the viability of the Retail Village.

I acknowledge that the observation wheel would provide passengers with unique views across the [name] and RPG and has the potential to offer them a greater appreciation of the various heritage assets or indeed encourage them to visit the gardens. However, as the installation is only for 18-months this indicates to me that any such claim is incidental and not the reason for installing the wheel.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, any benefits to the heritage assets are likely to be incidental, limited and short-term and not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I attach to the harm caused to the significance of the RPG and TCA and the listed buildings. I find that clear and convincing justification for the harm to the assets’ significance has not been provided. Accordingly the development fails to preserve the setting of the listed buildings and harms the significance of the RPG and the TCA. The development thus fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the provisions of the Framework.

The development is also contrary to Policies N1(h), N8a and N9 of The Plan for Stafford Borough 2011-2031 (the Borough Plan). Collectively these seek, amongst other things, to ensure development conserves and protects the significance of heritage assets and has regard to local context, including historic views and to elements of landscape that contribute to local distinctiveness, including heritage assets.

Framework paragraph 142 states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts and that the fundamental aim of national Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Framework goes on to state that ‘inappropriate development’ is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Borough Plan Policy SP7 deals with the location of new development. In Green Belt locations development should be consistent with national policies for the control of development and Borough Plan Policy E5. I am advised that Policy E5 relates to major developed sites in the Green Belt and as the development is not one of these Policy E5 is not relevant. In the circumstances, the relevant parts of Policy E7 are broadly consistent with national policy.

The application was submitted before the Framework was revised in December

It introduced the concept of ‘grey belt’ and new types of development that are not regarded as inappropriate provided they meet all of the criteria in paragraph

The definition of grey belt7 expressly excludes land where the application of the policies relates to area or assets in Framework footnote 7 would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. This includes designated heritage assets. Given my conclusions in the heritage balance above, this is the case in this instance and the appeal site is not grey belt.

Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within one of the exceptions listed in paragraph 154 and where it accords with all the criteria in paragraph 155. The appeal scheme does not fall within any of the listed exceptions 7 Annex 2: Glossary of the Framework in paragraph 154. Furthermore, as the site is not ‘grey belt’ paragraph 155 is not engaged. Consequently, the appeal scheme represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt in terms of the Framework.

Having found the appeal scheme is ‘inappropriate development’, I now need to consider the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt, which is one of its essential characteristics. Caselaw has established that it requires consideration of both spatial and visual aspects.

The development occupies an area of open and spacious overspill carpark that is free of built development. There are mature trees as a backdrop and screen, which form part of the adjacent RPG. The observation wheel itself stands on a base, together with the entrance/exit, driver’s stands and mast foundation, measuring about 19m x 17m. This occupies space on the ground. The observation wheel itself is a 3-dmensional structure that has height, mass, bulk and volume, even if it is not a fully solid structure. It extends a considerable distance vertically, projecting some 33 metres above the ground to rise above the tops of the nearby mature trees. Whilst the development is required for 18 months and would be removed from site after this time, for the duration of the 18 months the wheel and ground-based installations would be present every day, effectively permanently for the duration. In hours of darkness, which would last for longer in the winter, the wheel would be illuminated, which would highlight the spatial and visual presence.

The development clearly reduces the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt, regardless of its temporary nature and lightweight structure. That said, due to the location of the site and nature of the development I am satisfied that it does not compromise the five purposes of the remaining Green Belt as a whole.

The nearby retail units and Retail Village have been built in the Green Belt some years ago and mean that the observation wheel does not sit in open isolation. However, the retail units form part of a cluster of timber chalet-type structures that have been designed as a whole to create a shopping street. Being single storey buildings they sit low, unlike the observation wheel which is a tall vertical fret-work structure over 30m high. Furthermore, the appeal site is not part of the shopping ‘street’ or cluster of buildings – it stands on open car park land. I am led to understand there are extant planning permissions for a winery and another retail unit near to the appeal site, but I saw that neither has been built. This indicates to me that some development has been deemed acceptable in the vicinity of the Retail Village, but I have not been provided with plans or details of these proposals or been advised if there were any very special circumstances. Hence, I am unable to make any meaningful comparisons. In any event I must determine the appeal on its individual merits.

To conclude on this main issue, the development does not fall within the exceptions set out in paragraphs 154 or 155 of the Framework and Borough Plan Policy SP7 and is therefore inappropriate development which, by definition, is harmful to the Green Belt. There would also be a reduction in the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt.

Harmful inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances. I shall consider whether these exist later in the decision.

A taller 53m high wheel was allowed8 in 2009 for a 12 month period. That permission has expired and was over 15 years ago when I understand [name] had not long opened. That application would also have been assessed under a different policy regime and against the then relatively fledgling Trentham Retail Village as a tourist destination. Hence, any harm caused to the Green Belt and nearby heritage assets would have been balanced against the then benefits that were evaluated at the time. It is of little relevance now and sets no precedent.

The development represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt and there would also be harm to its openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and Framework paragraph 153 requires that substantial weight is given to any harm [my emphasis]. Inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances, which will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

In addition to harm to the Green Belt, there would be harm to the significance of a number of designated heritage assets, some of which are of the highest significance, which I have found is not outweighed by public benefits. I must give great weight to the conservation of the heritage assets.

The appellant advances a number of ‘other considerations’ in favour of the development, some of which I have already considered as part of the heritage balance, such as jobs, the economy and helping maintain [name] as an established tourist destination. Whilst the harm is reversible in that the land would be restored to its previous use once the wheel is taken down and removed, while the development is in situ it is causing daily harm to the Green Belt and heritage assets.

The considerations advanced in support of the appeal, whether taken individually or cumulatively, have limited weight in favour of the proposal. They do not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm I have identified, and the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. Accordingly, the proposed development conflicts with Borough Plan Policy SP7 whose aims have been outlined above, and the Framework.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole and this conflict is not outweighed by other material considerations as identified above. Therefore, for the reasons above the appeal should be dismissed.