Today is your last chance to comment on the Planning Application for change of use of the former Spar Shop, unless it goes to Committee and you ask to speak.
Whatever your views,
– email them to planning.service@peakdistrict.gov.uk,
– or phone in on 01620 816200,
– or deliver them in person to Aldern House in Bakewell by 5pm today.
Remember that the Planning Service can only take into account input relevant to the Authority’s and national policies. The most relevant PDNPA policy is:
Policy LS2: Change of use from a shop to any other use
a) A change of use of the ground floor part of a shop will not be permitted where it would reduce the range of community services available locally, unless it can be shown that the shop is no longer required by the community, is duplicated elsewhere within the settlement, or is no longer viable. When considering viability, evidence of reasonable attempts to sell or let the shop as a going concern will be material.
b) Where it proves impracticable to continue a building’s use as a shop, new uses should meet another community need (including those for affordable housing for local people or for workspace). Evidence of reasonable attempts to secure such a use will be required before alternatives are permitted.
c) Where a shop constitutes a small proportion of a dwelling, residential amenity will be fully taken into account when considering change of use. If segregation of a shop from a dwelling would have an unacceptable impact on its residential amenity, permission will be granted for a change to residential use.
This is reinforced by Policy GS1, which seeks to pay regard to the social and economic well-being of local communities.
It will also be taken into account that the Shop is within the Parwich Conservation Area, and how any changes will or will not impact on the Conservation Area. To get the links to the draft Conservation Appraisal document see the comments to our post ‘Last day of consultation on Conservation Area‘.
Also of interest is the Planning Officer’s report on an application for change of use to domestic residential for the Cavalier Inn at Grindon. An application last year to change use of this pub, that ceased trading in 2006, was turned down on the grounds that it had not been adequately demonstrated that it was not viable. A new application has been submitted and is due to be considered by today’s Planning Committee Meeting. Though now accepting that non-viability has been demonstrated, the Officers have again recommended refusal on the grounds that “there has been inadequate consideration of alternative uses to meet community needs“.
PARWICH.ORG 
It’s also worth pointing out, in case anyone has missed it, that the debate on the original “change of use” blog post is still going strong. Click here to start reading from the most recent batch of comments.
I have only just become aware of the “Parwich.org”, and have rattled off the following to the planners:
“I can see no valid reason why the application for change of use should not go ahead. I was significantly involved in earlier attempts to “save the shop” (and, indeed lost money in the process). Emma Machin then took over, and she and her partner Jason put an immense amount of work into enlarging the premises, and running the business in a way which could not be faulted, in terms both of effort and of imagination. It became a model village enterprise – and the sad fact is that it was not supported adequately by the village population. It is possible that a smaller shop run on the back of the village inn, with more limited objectives, may succeed. However, I was privy to the financial situation of the shop in it’s last incarnation and closure was forced upon it.
On a more personal (but not, I think, irrelevant) note, the owners, Emma and Jason are an excellent young couple with two young children, and it is extremely important that we keep such folk in the village (with it’s currently ageing population). The ”change of use” will stabilize their future in the village, where Jason has already found local employment.
I hope that my comments can be taken into account.”
Apart from which:
(a) I knew nothing about this website, which is impressive; and
(b) I have the gravest doubt about blogs in general – they can so easily become vehicles for local busybodies, and especially so when you permit publication under pseudonyms or initials – which is a most reprehensible practice which you should abandon forthwith!
If this is published, please do so under my name!
Well, if the blog didn’t exist, Prof. Young would not have a forum to air his views.
This blog is a great way to have constructive debate. it has, in my view has brought the community together, raised awarenes of local issues. It has also provided a lot of fun and amusement along the way.
I believe there is a team of very considered moderators who monitor and consider carefully all comments.
Although sometimes undesirable, I say anonymous comment is not a completely reprehensible practice.
– does one sign one’s ballot paper when voting?
I don’t want to carry on this conversation much further, but “Bob’s” comparison of anonymity in voting ballot papers and in a village blog just does not hold water.
I have no wish to condemn blogs in general – they are enormously popular, if not entirely to my taste – but rather the cloak of anonymity which is here being allowed. Even Bob rather hedges his views when he says that such comment is “not completely reprehensible”.
Bob says that the blog has provided “a lot of fun and amusement along the way”. This may be so in many cases of a less contentious nature, but in the present case it has reduced Emma to tears. Contributors need to try to put themselves into the minds of the recipients of their criticisms – and if they do not have the sensitivity to do this then the moderators should move in.
As Peter Young’s comment has been cross-posted on another thread, I have responded to it there.