Agenda item

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

The Planning officer stated that officers considered that the need for the development was not demonstrated and that more consultation with local people was needed.  The design of the scheme lacked quality and did not refer to the local building tradition.  Officers were happy to continue working with the applicants and the community to deliver an appropriate level of affordable  local needs housing in the parish.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Mark Walton, Agent

The Planning officer stated that the concern regarding the loss of woodland had been addressed therefore refusal reason 3 could be removed from the recommendation.

Although Members considered that the site was acceptable for affordable and local needs housing they were concerned regarding the evidence of need.  Concern was also expressed regarding the design of the dwellings and the proposed access.

The recommendation for refusal for reasons 1, 2, 4 and 5 stated in the report was moved and seconded.  The motion was put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.     The submitted application does not demonstrate that the development would meet eligible local needs for affordable housing and therefore fails to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to allow new build housing within the National Park contrary to Core Strategy policy HC1, saved Local Plan policies LH1 and LH2, the Authority’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Meeting the local need for affordable housing in the Peak District National Park’, Emerging Development Management Policy DMH1 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.     By virtue of its scale, density, layout, materials and detailed design the proposed development would fail to reflect or respect the character of the local area and would harm the character and appearance of the area, the setting of the designated Rainow Conservation Area and the landscape character of the National Park contrary to Core Strategy policies GSP1, GSP3, L1 and L3, saved Local Plan policies LC4, LC5, LC20 and LH1, Emerging Development Management Policies DMC1, DMC3, DMC5, DMC8 and DMC13 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.     Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to demonstrate that the development would be served by safe access. It is considered likely that the development could lead to highway safety issues in relation to vehicles waiting to turn right into the site. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Saved Local Plan policy LT18, Emerging Development Management Policy DMT3 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.     Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to demonstrate that the development would achieve the highest possible standards of carbon reductions and water efficiency in order to mitigate the causes of climate change contrary to Core Strategy Policy CC1 the Authority’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Climate Change and Sustainable Building’ and the National Planning Policy Framework.