Agenda item

The Chair and Vice Chair of Committee had visited the site on the previous day.

The Planning Officer introduced the report.  He reported to Members that there were strong concerns over the siting, on the scale and design of the houses and that the floor space was in excess of our policies, so would not be classed as affordable houses within our policy guidelines. There was also concern over the evidence that the applicants had submitted with the application regarding their need for an affordable housing.

The Planning Officer reported that since the report had been published a further update had been received from the applicants.

The following addressed the Committee under the Public Participation at Meetings Scheme:-

·         Ms J Mason, Objector – Live Telephone Call

·         James and Emma Isaac, Applicant – Video Recording

Members agreed that the design was not appropriate and required more work it would also intrude into the historic landscape causing harm to the non designated heritage asset. 

A motion to approve the recommendation as set out in the report was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:-

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons

1.         The application does not demonstrate that the development would meet eligible local needs for affordable housing. The proposed housing would not be affordable due to its size and type. The application therefore fails to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to allow new build housing within the National Park contrary to Core Strategy policy HC1, Development Management policies DMH1 and DMH2 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         The proposed site is not well related to the historic built form of Tideswell and would introduce development into the historic strip field system in a manner that would harm the significance of the strip fields and valued landscape character contrary to Core Strategy policies GSP1, GSP3, L1 and L3, Development Management policies DMC3, DMC4 and DMC5 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.         By virtue of its form and massing the proposed development would be an inappropriate design that would fail to reflect or respect the character of the local area contrary to Core Strategy policies GSP3, Development Management Policies DMC3, our adopted design guide 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.

5.         Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to enable to us to assess the potential impact upon trees or inform any necessary mitigation or replacement planting contrary to Development Management policy DMC13.