Peak Park planning officers are currently recommending refusal of the demolition and rebuild plans for the new Memorial Hall when it goes before the Planning Committee next Friday. However, the situation is not irreversible and there is room for manoeuvring.
These are their reasons for refusal:
1. The proposed development would not be of an appropriate design, materials or scale for its location.
2. The proposed development would fail to preserve or otherwise enhance the setting of a designated Conservation Area.
3. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.
4. Inadequate provision of parking spaces would compromise the safety of other highway users, result in harm to the amenity of the local area and put users with mobility difficulties at a relative disadvantage.
Click here to read the full 17 page document in printer-friendly PDF format.
Having just spoken to Chris Fridlington, the Planning Officer dealing with the application, he states that the above report was written before they received the amended version and since receiving this amended application subject to minor amendments, issues 1 & 2 could be resolved. He also states that there are a number of ways in which issues 3 & 4 may also be resolved, so that the Planning Officers can change their recommendation to one of approval for next Friday’s Planning Committee Meeting.
What we can do.
1. Even if you have already done so please write in again to Peak Park – all comments must be received by Wednesday 13th August. Email comments to planning.service@peakdistrict.gov.uk quote NP/DDD/0608/0546
2. Attend the planning committee meeting next Friday at The Conference Centre, Bakewell Agricultural Centre at 10am. (Click here for a map.)
There are people going who have spaces in their car, so if you are going or need a lift please email parwich@hotmail.com or ring Jane on 665. The physical presence of large numbers of our village (including children) will help to show planners the support for this project.
Remember that without planning permission there is NO CHANCE of Big Lottery funding, and therefore NO MONEY. If planning permission is refused, then certain alterations to the existing building would still be required by law. These alterations would still require approval from Peak Park planning officers, who have already indicated that they would request some substantial cosmetic changes. Without the support of Lottery funding, where would the money come from?
PARWICH.ORG 
I am very puzzled why the Planning Service raise parking as an issue at this stage when it was first discussed with them five years ago and repeatedly since. All the work undertaken in the village over the last five years has been based on Planning Officers’ assurances that they would support an application for redeveloping this site even given the limited space available for parking.
If they are opposed to this site, even though the current approach was developed in consultation with them and Highways, who support the scheme, why did they not say so five years ago or is this yet another example of the arbitrary changes in advice that seems to typify the Peak Park’s Planning Service over recent years?
Is this yet another example of a community scheme put at risk because the Peak Park Planning Service does not provide consistent advice?
We nearly lost the affordable housing at Parson’s Croft because the Planning Service arbitrarily introduced the condition of coursed limestone, despite this being inconsistent with the village vernacular for smaller dwellings, and despite the use of random stone having been agreed pre-application. This dramatically increased the cost of the build, to produce something less appropriate than that which was applied for. The Housing Association came very near to walking away from the scheme all together. Members of the Peak Park Board had requested an internal enquiry but when I asked for the results of that enquiry earlier this year I was told to look at the Authority’s notes. Requesting the notes under the Freedom of Information Act, I could find no record of any enquiry, in deed there was no mention of this issue at all. Also the Peak Park Authority continue to cite the Parson’s Croft houses as an example of how they are promoting affordable housing in the Park.
Officers’ inconsistent advice in relation to the garden room at Church Cottage resulted in five years of arguments, unnecessary appeals and goodness knows what expense to tax payers. The Planning Inspector indicated that the Officers’ recommendations were inconsistent with the Authority’s own policies. (see https://parwich.org/2008/06/04/church-cottage-planning-appeal-the-verdict/)
Is it acceptable that Planning Officers’ dilatoriness should put this community project at risk?