Agenda item

The report was presented by the Planning Officers who outlined the reasons for refusal as set out in the report. They confirmed that because the two applications were similar, they were being dealt with in the same report.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Steve Buckley, Agent

·         Matthew Hinckley, Applicant

An amendment to the report was highlighted in paragraph 2. It was confirmed that the late offer by the applicant includes an alternative of 3 plots for sale to a Registered Provider for £10,000 each (£30,000 total).

Planning Officers confirmed that they were unaware of any flaws with the Porter PE consultancy report.

Members noted the very clear policy that the Peak District National Park has around new housing developments, especially concerning the provision of affordable housing. If a development does not provide affordable housing, it must be justified otherwise, either by providing significant environmental gain or by enabling future affordable housing development to take place.

The Chair invited the applicant to the microphone to respond to questions from Members. The applicant was asked what the exceptional circumstance was for approving major development in the National Park. Mr Hinckley stated that the justification of major development was the re-establishing of the Marquis of Granby, the provision of affordable housing and the improvement to the appearance of the Hope Valley entranceway and landmark of Hope Valley.

The following concerns were raised by Members:

·         The application does not meet the local requirement for affordable housing

·         The application does not justify major development in the National Park

·         The £100,000 financial contribution for off-site affordable housing is not sufficient

·         The application was previously refused for several reasons – not just the lack of affordable housing – and the current application has not addressed any of these reasons, notably the appearance, design and the provision of affordable housing

·         The lack of integration of the proposed affordable houses with the rest of the development.

Planning Officers highlighted the key differences between the approved hotel application and the current one being discussed. Despite being of a similar mass, the hotel would have made a significant contribution to local tourism alongside wider economic benefits to the local communities in the Hope Valley. Alongside these differences, officers noted the significance of the change of use to open market apartments and the lack of direct benefit this would bring to local communities.

A motion to refuse the applications as set out in the recommendations was proposed.

The Chair suggested some minor amendments to the reasons for refusal, namely the priority being the provision of affordable housing, reference to the HC1 policy, and focussing on the quality of the building rather than landscapes.

The motion to refuse the applications subject to the amended reasons was seconded, voted on and carried. 

RESOLVED:

To REFUSE applications NP/HPK/1222/01543 and NP/HPK/1222/01563 for the following reasons:

1.         The development would not be in the public interest and exceptional circumstances do not exist to justify major open market housing development in the National Park. As such, the proposed development is contrary to Local Plan policies GSP1, GSP2, GSP3, DS1 and L1 and paragraph 177 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         The development does not sufficiently address the acute need for affordable housing in the locality. The development of the site for 21 open market houses has not been sufficiently justified contrary to the fundamental principle and policy  starting point in GSP1 and HC1 and DMH6 to address the locally identified need for affordable housing.

3.         The scale, massing and design of the residential development is wholly out of keeping with the established built tradition and residential character  of the Hope Valley and is therefore inappropriate in this location. The development is therefore contrary to policies GSP1, GSP2, GSP3, DMC1, DMC3 and the National Planning Policy Framework.