Agenda item

Full Application - Creation of parking area for dwelling from agricultural field at Hillcrest, Stanedge Road, Bakewell (NP/DDD/1220/1144, ALN)



The Chair and Vice Chair of Committee had driven past the site the previous day.


The Planning Officer introduced the report and confirmed that the site was outside the Bakewell Development Boundary and that part of the site was within the Conservation Area but not all.  The development had already taken place and the application was therefore retrospective.


The following spoke under the Public Participation at Meetings scheme:


·         Mrs Donnelly,  Applicant


Members raised concerns regarding the reasons for refusal including why the roadside boundary was classed as a heritage asset of historic significance. The ability to remove cars from the road offered a public benefit especially in an area so close to a school.


Clarification was offered regarding the wall which is associated with the field system  is classed of historical significance because of the definition of  boundary for the medieval field system of the area rather than their condition. Domestication would be intrusive because of the raised parking area.


A motion to refuse the application as recommended by the Officer was moved.


Members noted that Bakewell Town Council had objected to the application and preferred to keep development inside the development boundary. 


The motion to refuse the application as recommended by the Officer was seconded, put to the vote and carried. 




To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:



The site is outside of the Bakewell Development Boundary and the proposed parking and manoeuvring area would domesticate and erode the character of the Bakewell Conservation Area and detract from open views to the southwest from Stanedge Rd.  The loss of the historic narrow opening in the roadside boundary wall would cause harm to the wall as a heritage asset of historic significance contrary to Core Strategy policy L3 and Development Management policies DMC5, DMC8 and DMT8 and DMB1.  This harm would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme contrary to paras 193-196 of the National Planning Policy Framework.



It has not been demonstrated that the development would be served by a safe and suitable access contrary to Development Management Plan policy DMT3.


Supporting documents: