Decision details

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Mr Milner, applicant.

Although the site was within open countryside Members felt it was not isolated and that the building had some merit for conversion as it had a history related to water management and treatment in the area.  There was also concern expressed about the third reason recommendation for refusal.  A motion for deferral for further negotiations with the applicant was moved and seconded.

The Planning officer stated that no pre-application advice had been sought on this proposal and that it would be preferable for a decision to be made and for discussions to then take place with the applicant.

The motion for deferral was withdrawn and a new motion for refusal on reasons 1 and 2 of the recommendation with an amended reason 3 was moved and seconded.  This was then voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.         No housing need survey or other evidence has been submitted to demonstrate a proven need for the proposed affordable housing.  Given the sparsely populated nature of the Parish of Charlesworth and in the absence of any compelling evidence to demonstrate that there is an un-met demand for affordable housing within the Parish it is therefore considered the application has not demonstrated any proven need for the proposed development and is therefore contrary to saved Local Plan policy LH1 (i) and the Authority’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Meeting the local need for affordable housing in the Peak District National Park’.

2.         The total floor area of proposed four bedroom dwellings named Plot 1 and Plot 2 would be substantially greater than the floor space guidelines within paragraph 7.2 of the Authority’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Meeting the local need for affordable housing in the Peak District National Park’.  The development would also be set in a large plot potentially providing large garden areas to each of the proposed dwellings. It is therefore considered that the proposed dwellings would not be affordable by size or type to local people on low or moderate incomes contrary to saved Local Plan policy LH1 (iv).

3.         It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not address eligible local needs for homes that remain affordable contrary to Core Strategy policy HC1 A.