Agenda item

It was noted that this application had been deferred at the August meeting of the Committee to obtain further information and that Members had visited the site in August.

It was confirmed that since August the applicant had provided more information on the swept plan analysis, the proposed visibility splay and the signage to be displayed in land under the control of the applicant. It was noted that the applicant had included proposals to provide passing bays down Park Lane.

In introducing the report the officer recommendation was amended to add the words “and the amenity of the area” to reason 4.

The following spoke under the Public Participation at Meetings Scheme;

·         Mr Howard Griffith, Objector,

·         Mrs Rosalind Griffith, Objector,

·         Ian Mortimor on behalf of Parish Council, Objector

·         Sue Fogg, Objector

·         John Hollister, Agent

The Officer recommendation, as amended, was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1.         The proposal fails to justify why this ancillary minerals development is required to be located within the National Park and no alternative sites have been considered.  The proposal would unacceptably impact on the overall character of the area and the objectives of the National Park.  There is no justified need for the development which outweighs the harm to the National Park.  Thus, the development is contrary to requirements of Core Strategy policies GSP1, L1, and the saved Local Plan policies LM9 LM1 and conflicts with the conservation objectives for the National Park set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         The change of use of the land would lead to an increased industrialisation of the site and would have a detrimental effect on the character, amenity and enjoyment of the locality. This does not contribute to the conservation or enhancement of the National Park, and is contrary to policies GSP1, GSP3, L1, and the saved Local Plan policies LC21 and LM1 and conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework in particular paragraph 115 and 116.

3.         The proposal is for business development in the countryside outside the Natural Zone and outside the named settlements in policy DS1, and is not in accordance with the principles in policy E1 relating to business development outside of settlements.

4.         It has not been demonstrated that the site has a safe and suitable access. The proposal would unacceptably impact on users of the highway network and the amenity of the area.  The application fails to demonstrate that the development could be accessed to and from the A6 without a detriment to highway safety and the amenity of the area.  Therefore, the change of use would not be provided with a safe and suitable access contrary to requirements of policies T1, and T4 and the saved Local Plan policies LT9 and national planning policies in the framework.

5.         The proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of recreational users of Park Lane and on potential recreational users of the former railway line and this may compromise the viability of the Pedal Peak project to re-use the old railway line between Rowsley and Bakewell contrary to policy T6.

Cllr D Chapman left the meeting at 11.40am during consideration of this item.