Agenda item

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal  does not achieve the conservation and / or enhancement of a non-designated heritage asset, and it does not meet any other exception for new housing in the National Park, contrary to Core Strategy Policy HC1 and Development Management Policy DMC10.

2. The proposed development would have an unacceptable design and would result in harm to the character and appearance of the non-designated barn and Tideswell Conservation Area. The harm to the Conservation Area would be less than substantial but would not be outweighed by any public benefits, and harm to the non-designated barn is not outweighed as part of the planning balance. The development is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policies GSP1, GSP3, L1 and L3, Development Management Policies DMC3, DMC5 and DMC8 and the NPPF.

The Officer presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal as detailed in the report.

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Danny Hopkins- Applicant

Members had concerns over the overall size of the proposed development and also queried the consultation response provided by the Highways Authority.

Members considered whether to amend the second reason for refusal to identify the specific concerns they had with the proposal, however resolved to record in the minutes what the concerns related to. Concerns discussed during the meeting included the scale of the extensions and increase in height of the barn.

The Officer confirmed that the applicant had indicated that he did not want to further reduce the size of the development.

Following discussion, the reasons for refusal were amended to those below.

A motion to refuse the application for the revised reasons was proposed, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal  does not achieve the conservation and / or enhancement of a non-designated heritage asset, and it does not meet any other exception for new housing in the National Park, contrary to Core Strategy Policy HC1 and Development Management Policy DMC10.

2. The proposed development would have an unacceptable design and would result in harm to the character and appearance of the non-designated barn and Tideswell Conservation Area. The harm to the Conservation Area would be less than substantial but would not be outweighed by any public benefits, and harm to the non-designated barn is not outweighed as part of the planning balance. The development is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policies GSP1, GSP3, L1 and L3, Development Management Policies DMC3, DMC5 and DMC8 and the NPPF[BT1] [BT2] .

[BT2] 

10.37am K Richardson left the meeting.

10:38am The meeting was adjourned for a short break.

10:48am K Richardson returned to the meeting.

10:49am The meeting was resumed.