Decision details

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.