• Agenda item

Agenda item

Full Planning - Replacement Dwelling - Self-Build at Keepers Cottage, Moorside Lane, Pott Shrigley (NP/CEC/1025/1086) HF

Minutes:

The Planning Officer presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal as detailed in the report.  The application is for a self-build replacement dwelling.  Following an earlier application on the site, a conservation report from a structural engineer has been received along with a proposed scheme of work to repair the current building which is a non-designated heritage asset.  Since publication of the committee report, a tree survey commissioned by the applicant has been received and accepted by the Authority’s Tree Officer so this is no longer a recommended reason for refusal.

 

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

 

  • Anthea Wilkinson – Supporter
  • Tom Johnson – Applicant

 

Some Members had visited the site in 2024 in connection with an earlier application on the site.

 

The following points were discussed:

·         The size and design of the proposed dwelling and how it does not reflect the historic nature of the current building

·         The Senior Conservation Officer was present to clarify the significance and heritage of the current building

·         The viability of the current property and the repairs required

·         The duration of the deterioration of the current property

 

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

 

K Potter requested that her vote against the motion to refuse this application be recorded.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

1.

The proposal would result in the total loss of a non-designated heritage asset and would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of Lyme Park (Grade II* Park) and Lyme Park Conservation Area. There are no material planning considerations which outweigh the harm resulting from the loss of the building, and no public benefits which outweigh the harm to the setting of designated heritage assets. The development is therefore contrary to Policies GSP2, L3, DMC5, DMC8, DMC9, DMH9 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.

The proposal would have an unacceptable design and would harm the character and appearance of the site, its setting and the wider landscape, contrary to Policies GSP1, GSP3, L1, DMC3 and DMH9.

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: