Decisions

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The Officer informed Members of a minor correction to the recommendation which should read “The proposed development” instead of “The proposal development” and to paragraph 24 of the report where it should read  “The second letter raises no objection” instead of “The second letter raises on objection”  The Officer then went onto present the report.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Mrs Slater on behalf of the Applicant

Although Members had sympathy with the applicant in wanting to provide for their growing family, the reinstatement of the wall would not overcome the domesticating impacts of the development, which would be exposed in the landscape.

A motion to refuse the application was proposed, seconded, voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application is REFUSED for the following reason:  

The proposed development would harm the significance of the barn which is a non-designated heritage, its setting and surrounding landscape contrary to Core Strategy policies GSP3, L1, L3 and HC1, Development Management policies DMC3, DMC5 and DMC10, the Conservation of Historic Building Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Item 15 was presented and discussed at the same time as Item 14, but the votes were taken separately.    Please see the full minute details 47/24 above.

A motion to approve the application was proposed, seconded, voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1.            3 year time limit

2.            In accordance with submitted plans

3.            Before the erection or repair of any stonework, sample panel(s) of all new facing stonework shall be provided on site showing the proposed sizes, texture face-bond; and pointing mortar mix, joint thickness and finish profile for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved sample panel(s) which shall be retained on site until the work is completed.

4.            No works to remove any elements of the building or advertisements shall take place other than in accordance with a methodology (to include how building fabric is to be made good following removal) which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.

5.            Within 6 months of the date of this consent, the security lighting shown on the approved plans shall be removed from the building and the area made good in accordance with details which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.

Item 14 was presented and discussed at the same time as Item 15, but the votes were taken separately. 

The Planning Officer  presented the report and outlined the reasons for approval as set out in the report.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Mr Hugh Wright, Objector

Members asked the Officer whether some of the memorial plaques could be transferred to Bakewell Museum.

The Officer reported that 3 of the plaques were not listed so they can be removed without the Authority’s  consent, but  he was aware that the applicant was considering making separate application for the 2 plaques that were listed to be removed so that application could be coming to a future Planning Committee for consideration.

Mr Smith informed the Members that he was also Chair of Bakewell and District Historical Society, which covers Bakewell Museum, and he would be more than happy to have a discussion with the applicant for the plaques to go to the museum.

A motion to approve the application was proposed and seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1.            3 year time limit

2.            In accordance with submitted plans

3.            Before work begins, sample panel(s) of all new facing stonework shall be provided on site showing the proposed sizes, texture face-bond; and pointing mortar mix, joint thickness and finish profile for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved sample panel(s) which shall be retained on site until the work is completed.

4.            Within 6 months of the date of this consent, the security lighting shown on the approved plans shall be removed from the building and the area made good in accordance with details which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.

Item 10 was presented and discussed at the same time as Item 9, but the votes were taken separately.    Please see the full minute details 42/24 above.

A motion to approve the application was proposed, and seconded, put to the vote and carried subject to additional conditions regarding, shutters, specification for the solar panels and lighting.

RESOLVED:

That the application is APPROVED subject to the following conditions and the additional conditions outlined by the Planning Officer:    

1.            Standard time limit

2.            Carry out in accordance with specified approved plans and documents

3.            No works shall take place until a Written Scheme of Investigation for a scheme of a programme of level 3 building recording has been submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.

4.            A methodology including proposed mortar mix and finish for any rebuilding of the existing elevations to be submitted and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.  Once approved, a sample panel of rebuilt wall shall be made available for inspection on site.

5.            A methodology including mortar mix for any repointing to the existing stonework to be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.

6.            Precise details of proposed insulation to roofs, floors and walls of buildings to be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.

7.            A methodology for lifting, recording and relaying of stone floors to be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority. 

8.            Precise details of windows, doors and shutters including design, material, finish and colour to be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.

9.            Details of new rainwater goods to be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.

10.          Details of any new external vents to be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.

11.          All pipework, other than rainwater goods, shall be completely internal within the building.

12.          Mitigation and compensation enhancements presented within the bat and bird survey report to be implemented in full. 

13.          Provision of a bird compensation and enhancement strategy for barn swallow to be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority. 

14.          Pre-works bird nest checks shall be carried out on the barn by a suitably qualified ecologist prior to any works taking place within the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive). If active bird nests are present works must cease until chicks have fledged the nest.

15.          The air source heat pumps shall not be installed other than in complete accordance with a detailed scheme which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.

The Chair left the room for this item, as he had declared a prejudicial interest, and as the Vice Chair of Planning was not available for this meeting,  Cllr Murphy was voted in and took the Chair for this item

The Officer presented the report and reminded Members that this was an application that was deferred at the January meeting to allow for further discussion between the Applicant and Officers.  The Officer informed Members that since the January meeting, the applicant has omitted the proposal to replace the mullions and would repair the existing mullions instead.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Mr Trevor Ride, Applicant

Members were mindful that the existing windows were unauthorised so this was an opportunity to regularise the permission. Members considered that the appearance was not detrimental to the grade II listed property and that it was not possible to tell that the windows were double glazed, which would also make it more energy efficient

The motion to approve the application was proposed, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1.    The works hereby permitted shall be begun within 3 years from the date of this permission.

2.    The works hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the following approved plan: ‘2234-02 A’.

Item 9 was presented and discussed at the same time as Item 10, but the votes were taken separately. 

The report was presented by the Planning Officer, who set out the reasons for approval as set out in the report subject to the following additional conditions.

·         Ensure the shutter to the rear of south barn is retained

·         Agree precise specification for solar panels

·         Agree and control lighting

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Ms J Newman, Agent

Members noted that the Conservation Officer had raised objections to the issue of the flue and asked whether the issue had now been resolved?  The Officer confirmed that the Conservation Officer was now content with the scheme as the flue would be sensitively located on a less prominent elevation.

A motion to approve the application was proposed, and seconded, put to the vote and carried subject to additional conditions regarding, shutters, specification for the solar panels and lighting.

RESOLVED:

That the application is APPROVED subject to the following conditions  and the additional conditions outlined by the Planning Officer: 

1.            Standard time limit

2.            Carry out in accordance with specified approved plans and documents

3.            No works shall take place until a Written Scheme of Investigation for a scheme of a programme of level 3 building recording has been submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.

4.            No works shall take place until a Written Scheme of Investigation for a scheme of archaeological monitoring has been submitted to and approved in writing  by the National Park Authority. 

5.            Converted outbuildings A and B to remain ancillary to the residential use of South Barn. South Barn and the ancillary accommodation shall be maintained as a single planning unit.

6.            Removal of permitted development rights relating to extensions, porches, ancillary buildings, satellite antenna, solar pv panels, gates, fences, walls or other means of boundary enclosure.

7.            A methodology including proposed mortar mix and finish for any rebuilding of the existing elevations to be submitted and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.  Once approved, a sample panel of rebuilt wall shall be made available for inspection on site.

8.            Precise details of windows, doors and shutters including design, material, finish and colour to be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.

9.            Details of new rainwater goods to be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.

10.          Details of any new external vents to be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.

11.          All pipework, other than rainwater goods, shall be completely internal within the building.

12.          Any service lines associated with development should be placed underground.

13.          Mitigation and compensation enhancements presented within the bat and bird survey report to be implemented in full. 

14.          Provision of a bird compensation and enhancement strategy for barn swallow to be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority. 

15.          Pre-works bird nest checks shall be carried out on the barn by a suitably qualified ecologist prior to any works taking place within the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive). If active bird nests are present works must cease until chicks have fledged the nest.

16.          Tree protection measures within submitted tree report to be carried out in full.

17.          Landscaping plan including details of soft and hard landscaping and replacement trees to be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.  Replacement trees shall be planted in the approved locations in the first planting season following discharge of the condition by the National Park Authority. If within 5 years of planting, the tree(s) die or become seriously damaged or diseased, then they shall be replaced in the next planting season by trees of similar size and species and in a similar location, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the National Park Authority.

18.          Air source heat pumps shall be installed and operational before the completion or first occupation of each approved dwelling. The air source heat pumps shall not be installed other than in complete accordance with a detailed scheme which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.

19.          Development hereby permitted not to be brought into use until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The parking and turning areas shall thereafter be retained unobstructed as parking and turning areas for the life of the development.

20.          Development hereby permitted not to be brought into use until the access drive has been surfaced in a bound material for a minimum distance of 5 metres from the rear of the carriageway edge.

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The Planning Officer informed Members that an amended plan had been received since the report had been prepared, and these altered the internal layout so it was now the Authority’s view that the proposals did comprise a C1 hotel use so reason 2 for refusal could now be struck out.

The Officer then presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal.

Cllr Huddlestone left the meeting at 12.30pm during consideration of this item.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Ms A Cotton – Supporter

·         Mr T Stubbins - Supporter

·         Sir R Fitzherbert – Supporter

·         Mr R Hattersley - Supporter

Members asked the Officer what was meant by “avoiding long term protection of employment land” which was mentioned by one of the speakers. 

The Officers reported that Bakewell was a strategic location and that there was only 14 sites across the National Park for this kind of business provision. There was a lack of high quality employment space in the National Park, so there was a need to develop a mix of land uses and we don’t want to see good employment land being turned over to just housing,  although important, that is why the District Council objected to this application, as it was felt that there was still a need for this type of land in the locality. Officers clarified that national policy states that land should not be protected in the long term if there was no reasonable prospect of it coming forward for that use, but that in their view this had not been demonstrated by the application in light of existing evidence regarding demand for employment space.

Members considered that losing part of this site would add pressure to other less appropriate sites within the National Park. It would represent better planning for the area to retain the flexibility so that as a business need arises, a good quality site would still be available in a sustainable location.  Members did not accept that the site was surplus to requirements for industrial use due to the Riverside site as they were sites of different character, but did show that there was a demand for these use classes and it would be short sighted to lose this kind of business provision.

A motion to approve the application was moved, but not seconded.

The Officer recommendation to refuse the application was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    The development would result in the loss of a site allocated and safeguarded for employment use. There is no overriding justification or evidence of strategic need that would otherwise support the change to the proposed development, and the loss of the employment use would therefore be contrary to Core Strategy policy E1 and Development Management policy DME3.

2.    The proposed design while reflecting nearby buildings would not deliver high quality design or the highest possible standards of carbon reductions and water efficiency in order to mitigate the causes of climate change contrary to Core Strategy policies GSP3 and CC1, Development Management policy DMC3, the Authority’s adopted Supplementary Planning Documents ‘Design Guide’ and ‘Climate Change and Sustainable Building’ and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.    Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to demonstrate that surface water from the development would incorporate a satisfactory sustainable drainage system contrary to Core Strategy policy CC5 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The Planning Officer presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Cllr A Sutton – Supporter

·         Mr A Critchlow – Supporter

·         Mr B Nicholls – Agent

Members felt some sympathy to local farmers and having to diversify, however there was some concern it would be a significant intrusion into the open countryside and prominent. When asked, the Officer confirmed that the Agent was prepared to work with Officers on a planting scheme and further planting could be secured by condition.

Members felt that the site users would help support the local businesses and it was noted that the Highways Authority had raised no objections to the proposal as it stood, and by approving the proposal it would give the Officers more control on the use of the site as if refused then the applicant could still operate the site under the 60 day/year rule for up to 50 pitches which would have a bigger impact on the landscape.

A motion to approve the application, was moved, seconded, put to the vote and lost.  The recommendation for refusal, as set out in the report, was then moved and seconded.  This was voted on and carried. 

However the Applicant queried the vote and the Chair agreed the vote may have been incorrect and re-took the vote on the first motion for approval. The motion for approval, which had originally been moved and seconded, was put to the vote and carried by the Chair’s casting vote.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1.         Commence development within 3 years

2.         Adopt plans as proposed

3.         Holiday occupancy restriction

4.         Control of External lighting

5.         Remove permitted development rights for developments required for a site licence

6.         Landscaping scheme to be submitted and approved, including addressing screening at eastern boundary and addressing existing access

7.         Access works to be completed prior to commencement

8.         Waste disposal details to be submitted and approved

9.         Noise report recommendations to be adhered to

10.      No more than 5 pitches, with no caravan remaining on site for more than 28 day/year

11.      Control the season March to October as applied for

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The Planning Officer presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Mr M Goodwin, Applicant

Members sympathised with the applicant but considered that although a building on this site was acceptable, the orientation of the proposal needed to be revised so bring it in line with the properties on the other side of the road.

Members accepted that a sufficient case of local connection had been made to justify the house, but asked that the application be deferred to enable discussions to take place with Officers on the siting and orientation of the dwelling. The decision would then be delegated to Officers so there would be no need for this application to come back to Committee.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED to allow for further discussions with Officers and the Applicant to take place regarding the design and orientation of the proposal, then to delegate the decision to Officers.

Cllr Brady returned to the meeting and retook the Chair.

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The Planning Officer informed Members of 2 amendments to the report since its publication.

There was no proposal now to raise the eaves or ridge height of the two-storey barn (unit 4) and the car port element of the application had been withdrawn by the applicant.

The Officer then went onto present the report and outline the reasons for refusal.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Mr D Oulsnam, Agent – Statement read out by a member of Democratic Services

Members considered that not enough information and detail was provided and what information had been provided showed a lack of understanding of the significance of the buildings and the impact on the heritage assets and wider landscape.

The motion to refuse the application with the addition of lack of information to the reason for refusal was proposed, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to assess the significance of the historic farmstead. The development would harm the significance of the historic farmstead and its setting contrary to Core Strategy policies GSP3, L1, L3 and HC1 and Development Management policies DMC3, DMC5 and DMC10. The harm when weighed in the planning balance would not be outweighed by other public benefits. The application is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.