McCartney must pull down cabin in planning row
By David Sapsted
(Filed: 26/01/2006)
Sir Paul McCartney has been told to tear down a wooden lodge on his country estate in a planning row with councillors.
The two-bedroom cabin was erected without planning permission in an attempt to provide the former Beatle with "privacy, seclusion and security" according to documents belatedly submitted to the local council.
Set among woodland and on the edge of a conservation pond created by Sir Paul and his late wife Linda, the lodge was erected last year for the "quiet and private enjoyment" of the family.
The cabin actually appears to have been built by Sir Paul's son James, 28, who is the main resident these days of Woodlands Farm on the estate near Peasmarsh, East Sussex - the family home of Sir Paul, his late wife and their children for more than 25 years.
Since his marriage to Heather Mills, the singer-songwriter has been an increasingly infrequent visitor to the six-bedroom farmhouse on the estate and its recording studio in a converted windmill.
The couple seem to prefer life in a seafront, art deco home in Hove which they bought for £1 million.
In an attempt to gain retrospective planning permission for the lodge after the parish council objected to its erection in a designated area of outstanding natural beauty, Gavin Sargent, the McCartneys' planning agent told Rother district council that the building was needed because "the owner has a requirement for privacy, seclusion and security that the buildings at Woodlands Farm cannot provide".
"This is due to the proximity of the public footpath that passes by the farmhouse and through the farmyard, and also the activities connected with the working farm and machinery movements creating noise disturbance and safety issues."
However, the council rejected the application, saying the building "harms the intrinsic landscape quality and character" of the High Weald.
Sir Paul now has until June to appeal against the decision or pull down the lodge.
Grey Metcalf, of Peasmarsh parish council, said: "I feel strongly that laws should be upheld. After all, planning laws are there for a reason."
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/26/nmacca26.xml
