The site was centred on the walled former kitchen garden of the grade I listed building. The proposal entailed the replacement of most of the existing unprepossessing timber and brick buildings on the site with four rectangular buildings which would be sited parallel to each other. These would be constructed with colour-coated steel cladding to the walls and profiled metal sheeting to the roofs.
The inspector considered that the existing development detracted from the character and appearance of the kitchen garden wall. In comparison the proposal would lead to exposure of more of the wall. He found, however, that the proposed buildings would have a more regimented layout and utilitarian appearance than the existing buildings.
The metal materials would be stark in the context of the predominantly brick, stone and slate buildings nearby. The proposals would result in a scale of development which would be more imposing and less subordinate than the existing, he decided. As a result the proposal would detract from the setting of the listed wall.
The secretary of state acknowledged the moral and ethical objections raised by very substantial numbers of people. Thousands of representations and several large petitions had been submitted raising objection to the breeding for, and use of animals in, medical and other research, particularly beagles. However, he had regard to the fact that the courts had determined that moral considerations were not normally material to a planning decision, and he took account of the fact that other legislation existed outside the land-use planning regime to control the breeding of animals and their use in research.
Inspector Mark Dakeyne; Written representations
