Agenda item

It was noted that Members had visited the site on the previous day.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Andy Tickle, Friends of the Peak District, Objector

·         Jack Hotchin, Applicant

Cllr P Brady stated that he would comment on the application but he would not vote on it as he knew some of the representation writers.

In response to a Member’s query the Director of Conservation and Planning stated that in his view planning policies were being  used to deliver affordable local needs housing and that Members should be aware that local needs dwellings are being approved under delegated powers and that the applications reported to Committee are  typically  those which raise broader issues.  The Director stated he planned to do a summary of approvals from the monthly delegated applications decisions lists.

Members were concerned that the site was very isolated and that a total new build would be required rather than conversion of the existing barn.

The recommendation for refusal was moved and seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed development would create an isolated new build dwelling in the open countryside that would not deliver conservation or enhancement of a valued vernacular building. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy HC1 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to avoid isolated homes in the countryside.

2.    The proposed development would result in the almost total demolition of the existing field barn which is a non-designated heritage asset, resulting in almost complete loss of the non-designated heritage asset, and would harm the character of the agricultural strip field system in which the barn is set and which is also a non-designated heritage asset. There are no public benefits that outweigh the harm to the non-designated heritage assets. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies GSP1, GSP2, GSP3, L1, L3, LC4, LC8 and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.    The creation of a new dwelling in this isolated location within the open countryside and the domestication of the site would result in significant harm to the landscape character and scenic beauty of the National Park. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies GSP1, GSP2, GSP3, L1, L3 and LC4 and paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework.