Agenda item

The report was presented by the Planning Officer who outlined the reasons for refusal as set out in the report.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Mark Boyd, Supporter

·         Rachel Woodhouse-Hague, Supporter

Members acknowledged that as with the previous application at the site, they were keen to see the site restored, however the following concerns were expressed:

·         The proposed scheme would be development in the open countryside

·         The viability of other options e.g. residential use of the site, had not been sufficiently explored

·         Any need for haste had been caused by two decades of neglect of the site

·         Impact of the proposed car park on the landscape and setting

·         The justification for a large car park given a mini bus service was proposed

·         The proposed scheme would be over development

·         Design concerns over the rear extension, and also of its impact on views from the wider landscape

·         Insufficient details provided regarding the proposed biomass boiler

·         Whether the electrical infrastructure would support the proposed Electric Vehicle Charging points

Members also discussed the benefits of the proposed scheme

·         It would save the building from further ruin, and in order for this to be achieved it would need to be financed by a commercial use

·         The benefit to visitors to the National Park

·         Concerns such as potential use of fireworks could be controlled by condition

Officers advised that if the application was approved, a conversation would have to take place with the applicant about conditions. Also, the Habitat Assessment would have to be reviewed so as to be clear that it was the Authority’s own assessment as opposed to the adoption of the shadow assessment (to answer the comments of Natural England).. In order to ensure that maximum gain was secured a Section 106 Agreement should be made to remove further wedding event structures within the applicant’s control around the Bradfield area but beyond the application site.

A motion to defer the application with a strong indication that Members are minded to approve, and that a report be made back no later than August’s Planning Committee meeting setting out the conditions of any planning permissions, any improvements that can be achieved, and the outline of the Section 106, was proposed and seconded.

A motion to approve the application subject to further agreement of conditions was proposed.

A vote on the first motion, to defer the application was taken and carried.

Members requested that a report be obtained from the Highways Authority, who had not provided any comments.

To DEFER the application with a strong indication that Members are minded to approve, and that a report be made back no later than August’s Planning Committee meeting for final determination of this matter setting out the conditions of any planning permissions, any improvements that can be achieved, and the outline of the Section 106.