The Planning Application for a rear extension to Station Road Farm house was rejected today by the Peak Park Authority’s Planning Committee. It was rejected by 5 votes to 4, with one abstention. Of the possible 19 Committee members some eleven, including the Chair, were present, meaning the rejection was carried by less than one third of the Committee.
The Committee were clearly split on the application with a motion to defer making a decision until after a site visit, only being rejected after the Chair used her casting vote. Some Committee members felt they could not make decision only on the basis of photographs, especially given the strong local support, including that of the Parish Council*, in favour of the application, however they were out voted. It should be noted that a member of the public present subsequently complained that the photographs and plans shown at the meeting were very difficult to see, and that they only told one side of the story. This had been raised by speakers in relation to other items on the agenda.
The main factor taken into account was the size of the extension relative to the existing building, though the applicant’s needs and the agricultural use of the property were also mentioned. Contrary to the Planning Service’s position that no extension on this property was acceptable, members of the Committee indicated they may look favourably on a smaller extension. Also Bob Brian, Head of the Planning Service, agreed the Officers would look positively on an application for an additional new ‘local needs’ house on the same plot.
It is also perhaps worth mentioning some of the things that may not appear in the on-line minutes. Mr Bob Bryan presenting the case for the Planning Service, did not appear totally familiar with the application, and referred to the upper floor of the proposed extension as containing a bedroom and ‘en suite bathroom’, whereas the application was for a bedroom and space for the only bathroom of the house. The existing small bathroom would be lost in order to gain access to the extension. Unfortunately this error was repeated by one member of the Committee who voted against the application on the grounds that “it was an over large extension just to provide an en suite bedroom”. It is not possible to know if this slip had any influence on the resulting decision, but it could have altered how the scheme was perceived.
Also the minutes do not normally include what applicants and other speakers say to the meeting, beyond saying ‘x spoke for the application’ or ‘x spoke against the application’. Jonathan Jenkin of the Planning and Design Practice Ltd, Derby, as her agent, represented the applicant, and strongly spoke in favour of the scheme, arguing its size was within permitted parameters, its appearance respected the dominance of the exiting house and character of the village, and its positioning meant it had minimal impact on the streetscape. He also pointed out that it was a working farm house, though small, and not just a cottage. Certainly the Committee appeared to take on board that they had the option of accepting an extension of this size as the current Authority guidelines were just that, and not a fixed policy.
It must be hard for the applicant when she sees every day buildings within in the Parwich Conservation area that have extensions that are larger than the parent house, and for her to understand why the Planning Service feel it would be more acceptable to look at building a further new house in the orchard or a double garage with accommodation above, either of which would necessarily be larger than the proposed extension.
It is a fact of life that there are virtually no un-extended small cottages left in Parwich, but it is also the major feature of Parwich Conservation Area that it is made up of varied buildings with open spaces between. It is also worth asking the question would a double garage or a new house here be more or less in keeping with the Conservation Area than the proposed extension?
* A local Parish Councillor had asked to speak at the meeting, but unfortunately he had missed the deadline, which is midday two days before the meeting.
PARWICH.ORG 
Having been at this meeting, I would like to raise the issue of balance between the Officers’ and the applicant’s opportunities to present their case. The Officers prepare the report, have time to present issues at any site visit and then have a block of time to present to the Committee. Also the Officers choose what plans and photographs are presented to the meeting.
In relation to the Moss Rake Quarry application, heard today, the applicant had arranged for an expert to respond to the perceived errors and omissions in the Officer’s report, he was allowed one and a half minutes, then the applicant was allowed a further one and a half minutes to present his case. The applicant felt that the pictures used did not permit understanding of the restoration work that had been undertaken. The Officers’ were allowed unrestricted time to then again comment on the two speakers.
I do not have an opinion on this application, though I sat through the all of this item, as I feel not enough time was allowed to understand both the concerns about the Officers’ report and for the applicant to present his case.
These factors may not have influenced the decision, as Members seemed familiar with the details of this application already, but it does seem that applicants are very much at a disadvantage if they are in disagreement with the Officers.
Some Authorities, such as Derbyshire Dales, hold evening Planning meetings to make it easier for applicants and the public to attend. Also for Derbyshire Dales the deadline to inform them if you wish to speak is midday the day before. Derbyshire Dales automatically informs anyone who comments on an application when it is going to Committee, whereas the Peak Park leaves it up to individuals to phone them or to check up on their website.
The minutes of this meeting are now on-line at http://resources.peakdistrict.gov.uk/ctte/planning/minutes/2008/080418.pdf.
3. FULL PLANNING APPLICATION – CONSTRUCTION OF EXTENSION, STATION
ROAD FARMHOUSE, DAM LANE, PARWICH (NP/DDD/0208/0103, P2869, 25
FEBRUARY 2008, 418529/354409/SM)
Mr J Jenkins, Agent, spoke in favour of the application. He then answered questions from Members.
In response to Members’ queries the Head of Planning stated that if Members were minded to approve the application it would not need to be referred to the Authority meeting.
A motion for a site visit to consider the proposal within the context of the area was moved and seconded. This was then voted on and lost by the Chair’s casting vote.
The recommendation for refusal was then moved, seconded voted on and carried.
RESOLVED:
That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. Scale, massing and form of proposed extension would harm the appearance of a building of vernacular merit and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to Policies GS1, C3, C4 and C9 of the Structure Plan and Policies LC4, LC5 and LH4 of the Local Plan.