Originally, the Peak park Planners robustly opposed this planning application, and rightly so. They gave a detailed, eloquent and forthright professional assessment, as follows.

The proposed development
– is not an appropriate design
– would use inappropriate materials
– is of inappropriate scale for its location.
– is contrary to Peak Park policies 4,10,30, and 31.
– runs contrary to the Structure Plan policies GS1, C3, and C4
– runs foul of Local policies LC4 and LC5
– is contrary to Supplementary Planning Documents and advice in PPS1, PPS7 and PPG15
– would fail to preserve or enhance a designated Conservation area.
– would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.
– provides inadequate provision of parking spaces, so compromising the safety of other highways users.
– would result in harm to the amenity of the local area and
– would put users with mobility difficulties at a relative disadvantage contrary to Structure Plan policies C15, T1, T8 and Local plan policies LC4 LT10 and LT22.

How’s about this for just one of the many quotes from their appraisal that are profoundly critical:

…there are serious flaws with the design approach taken in this case that gives rise to the Authority’s objections on design grounds….. any approval for the new hall would result in the introduction of a discordant and alien feature to the centre of the village.

We agree. We especially wish to defend our trees on this site from being destroyed so that we can see this proposed abomination with greater ease.

In the summary of their case, these were just a few of Peak Park’s points:

- The current application is contrary to general strategy, spatial conservation policies and an extensive range of detailed policies relevant to the proposal.
- The current application is considered to be incompatible with transport policies in the
Development Plan because of inadequate provision of parking spaces.
- The current application is open to substantial objections on grounds of unacceptable adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.
- The current application is open to substantial objections on the grounds of unacceptable
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the designated Conservation Area.
- The current application is open to substantial objections on design grounds.
- The proposed replacement village hall is not in keeping with the fundamental principles of the local building tradition and does not address issues of inclusivity, legibility and accessibility which are fundamental attributes of a successful public building.

In the face of this devastating critique, how was the Peak Park recomendation of refusal of planning permission so miraculously reversed at the last moment? Its a mystery to me.

The result is that a Coach and Horses has been driven through the entirety of Peak Park Strategic, Local and Conservation Policy, and in my opionion, has left the Peak Park’s planning integrity in tatters. The Planning Committee should be ashamed of themselves for letting down their planners so badly when the recommendation of rejection of the application was so comprehensive, thorough-going and wide-ranging.

When it came to the Planning Committee meeting on 15th August, two objectors were humiliated by being given just ninety seconds each to make verbal comment, while the proponents of the scheme were given four slots of three minutes each! Is this fair? Had the Committee decided before it ever sat down? Does it suggest the whole process had been fixed somehow? Was it a charade? Is this what’s called ‘Democracy’? Should the Hall committe be quite so smug?

As one village resident commented after the meeting “This is a stitch up”. And I agree.

The truth is – this Village Hall initiative is simply not supported by a significant section of the community. They would prefer refurbishment of the Hall at much less expense, or for a new Hall to be relocated on a site with adequate car parking so that Hall provision is not lost until the new Hall is ready.

I wonder if Parwich.org has space for opposition to the Party line?

It was a real morale booster to see so many faces in the audience and hear their positive comments. The demonstration of community determination was most apparent and beneficial not only to our project but that of Over Haddon, a smaller village than ours,but faced with all the same issues of sustaining a vibrant living working rural community in which village halls play such an active and necessary part.

I applaud the web team who have written such a commendable report on the process and outcome. The steering group welcomes and is indeed aided by your comments and suggestions for improvements. The Big Lottery Grant decision will focus on community involvement and engagement in addition to a clear indication that we have the skills, knowledge and resources to deliver this project. The acknowledgement by Peak District National Park Authority members of our professionalism and vision in putting forward a sensitive contemporary design solution in a conservation area is something of which we should be immensely proud.

It has not always been easy, and the objections and disagreements are an important part of the process. The time and thought put in by those unhappy with the scheme are equally valuable in ensuring we have the best possible Memorial Hall.

We have ‘Project Parwich’, but perhaps it should be ‘Celebration Parwich’.

Maybe we need to have some form of event to acknowledge the achievement so far and to celebrate the community of Parwich.

I’m hugely impressed with the power of your group, and delighted that you and our immediate neighbour, Over Haddon, got unanimous approvals for your new halls -and praise – from the PDNPA membership and certain officers.

As chairman of Sustainable Yougrave and a member of Youlgrave’s Parish Plan team, I’m encouraged by the resurgence of community power as a political force. Also by your application(s) to major capital funds.

We have capital and carbon ambitions too, and can carry on planning with greater confidence. Thank you for that.

This note is personal and hasn’t been agreed by SY or the PP team.

I would also like to say that we must empathise with the points made in the objections and do what we can to address them.

Seeing the dedication and effort of these people at close quarters I am truly in awe of their drive to ensure that generations to come have a lasting and sustainable facility and focal point for the community.