The planning committee gave approval to the application to allow the Hall Committee to meet an application deadline for ‘free’ Lottery money. But this has been given only by sacrificing National and Peak Park Strategic, Local and Conservation area policies.

The planning Officers wrote a report rejecting the application on 30 substantial counts, but this document has been substantially ignored. How it was possible to get approval after their devastating critique of the plans beggars belief.

The press release says the new hall “will be stone-built to harmonise with their village settings”. But the Peak Park’s Historic Buildings Officer said the design was flawed because it did not fit in with the Conservation area and used inappropriate materials. It is still planned to have a metal barn-like roof which is a deep offence to the Conservation Area, and particularly to the six listed buildings surrounding the site. The new Hall will still be 65 per cent larger than the existing one, and in the words of the planners, it is ‘overdevelopment’ of the site. The last minute amendments did not shrink the building.

When the Chair of the planning committee Hilda Gaddum said “We very much welcome the fact that they have worked very hard with our officers to achieve schemes that not only blend with their national park setting, but benefit residents and the environment.” she was talking rubbish. This is what the officers concluded in the report that was ignored.

- 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.

To quote page 8 of the officials’ report “any approval for the new hall would result in the introduction of a discordant and alien feature to the centre of the village”. Last minute minor tinkering with the application changed precious little.

My personal conclusion is that Ms Gaddum’s statement is hypocrisy, and this view is supported by the following statement from their report. “Officers have consistently advised that the design of the building was open to
objections. Officers have also consistently advised of concerns relating to the adequacy of parking provision. However, despite a significant and substantial number of officer hours having been dedicated to pre-application discussions, negotiations have resulted in the submission of additional layers of justification for the submitted scheme rather than amendments and the design of the new hall has remained relatively unchanged”. This remains substantially true.

I also disagree with the Chair of the Park Authority when he said the application will provide an example to other villages in terms of design, sustainability and blending with the national park setting. The last minute amendments by the applicant for this Hall do not address the fundamental issues outlined by the planning officials themselves. If they did, why are do so many Parwich residents still think the Hall only needs refurbishment? By the planning officials’ own admission the existing Hall is in ‘reasonable condition’.

With regard to residents’ concerns over traffic hazards, parking problems and noise. Cllr Gaddum said: “.. in view of the fact that the highways authority has no overriding objection, the planning committee must take heed of their professional advice.” It is nonetheless true that under normal circumstances a new village hall of this size would require 15 parking places, not 7.

More than that, if she believes she must take heed of professional advice, WHY SHE HAS NOT HEEDED THE OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVICE OF HER OWN OFFICERS who outlined 30 substantial reasons for rejecting the application? In my view the Committee was neither even-handed nor judicious in coming to its decision. I will give my reasons for this upon request.

Sadly, I find that an appeal to the Secretary of State is not permitted to objectors if the decision goes against them. So we seem stuck with this unpalatable outcome if the money can be raised.