CHEESE FACTORY DEVELOPMENT
Having lodged an Application to ammend Plot 1 on 7 November 2017, the Applicant withdrew this Applicationafter we made clear in our opposition, it should be seen as a stand alone application for a large open market house providing no enablement - so must be refused.
In another attempt to get the very much larger house approved, they have now lodged a new application dated December 15, seeking to remove the important clause 2 from the conditions imposed by the Inspector at a the Appeal. This is the clause that states the Development must proceed according to the plans submitted at Appeal.
Our Official submitted response to the Planning Application is below and can be viewed on the PDNPA website:
PLOT 1 and the VALIDITY OF THIS APPLICATION
Clearly the Parish Council were correct in their view that previous withdrawn Application NP/DDD/1017/1110 amounted to the creation of a new open market house without the justification of enabling affordable housing and enhancing the appearance of the wider site.
This Application is for exactly the same house as in withdrawn Application 1110, but seeks to gain approval for the revision to design and scale of Plot 1, by seeking to remove one of the most important conditions (2) imposed on the scheme by the Inspector’s Appeal Decision.
Clearly we retain all our previous objections to the proposed alterations to Plot 1, but are additionally concerned about the proposed removal of condition 2.
Furthermore despite a red line being drawn around the whole site - there is clearly separate ownership of Plot 1, as against the remainder of the 25 house site which delivers the enablement.
Under this Application, Plot 1 will be developed independently of the remainder of the site, therefore should surely have its own red line. It remains a separate Application for a very large open market house, in different ownership from the remaining site and offering no enablement. It is therefore contrary to Core Policy and should be refused.
OTHER OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION
The condition (2) they seek to remove is fundamental to the whole development and its intention is surely to be read as a whole as clearly stated by the Appeal Decision clause 89 below.
89. A condition is imposed which requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans [Condition 2]. This is important as the submitted plans and drawings define the scope and extent of the development proposed. It includes the overall balance and location of built development and open space across the site. For these reasons and in the interests of the character and appearance of the locality, a condition is imposed setting an upper limit on the number of dwellings constructed on the appeal site [Condition 3].
In contrast to the Inspector’s view, the proposed substantial increase in size and scale of Plot 1 would undoubtedly alter the scope and extent of the Development and the overall balance of the site.
The proposed house is far too large, uncharacteristic of the remainder of the scheme and completely unacceptable in such a detached and highly visible position within the landscape.
The Inspector’s reason for retaining Plot 1 in the scheme was its removal ‘would cause the development to result in an uncharacteristically abrupt linear edge to the village and might also leave existing redundant structures in place without a solution for their removal.’ This is far from suggesting it should be the largest, most imposing and dominant structure on the whole scheme as proposed by the amended design.
The design approved was already in our view incongruous by virtue of being overlarge and the only building to the west of the Bridge End Farm track. An increase in size and scale will accentuate the adverse impact on the landscape to the detriment of scenic beauty of the surrounding land. It will be the dominant feature within the Development, prominently seen from several well used footpaths.
The Design proposed is not new, but a re-presentation of a Design which has already been rejected and criticised on numerous occasions by the PDNPA, Public and Parish Council.
The Design submitted in this Application ref: (08 11 A August 2014) was originally included in Application: NP/DDD/1014/1045 in October 2014 but was withdrawn and replaced by a smaller version (08 50 A January 2015) in the face of criticism from Authority Officers, prior to the Planning Committee meeting in February 2015.
It therefore formed no part of the Appeal proceedings when the smaller replacement house ((08 50A January 2015), which was presented to Committee, was the subject of the Inspector’s Decision.
During the Appeal the Appellant’s introduced and then withdrew a third design PL (010) May 2011 – a large house previously submitted for Plot 1 in the failed 2011 Application and 2012 Appeal.
Its withdrawal in the Appeal and indeed the Appellant’s offer to accept a Split Decision omitting Plot 1 altogether, clearly indicates the sensitivity of this important site.
The design now forming this Application is as stated, the original design from the October 2014 Application when it was particularly criticised by PDNPA Build Environment Officer who stated it ‘is unacceptable as it is a pastiche of C17 Derbyshire Hall which devalues the originals in the National Park.’
It was then as noted, replaced by the smaller version (08 50 A January 2015), which despite a considerable size reduction, still required according to the Officer’s report ‘to be scaled back to more reasonable proportions.’ This led to Condition 4 being proposed in the Officer’s report, which suggested the Appellant to submit an amended scheme for Plot 1 of reduced size and footprint.
No smaller design was submitted and (88 05 A) went before the Inspector who importantly noted in his Decision:
39. The plot 1 house design that is the subject of this appeal as a single dwelling it would be a very significant structure, but it would protrude less to the west than the withdrawn revision ( (PL 010 May 2011) that was shown to the hearing. In addition, the frontage and massing that would be created by the plot 1 proposal would display features and a scale that would be reflected in blocks elsewhere in the development.
In number 39 above the Inspector is stating exactly why this latest Application must be rejected. The proposed design is similar in scale to the withdrawn version. It is far larger and more prominent than the one approved by the Inspector (as he notes above in referring to the withdrawn version) and it displays NONE of the features and scale that are reflected in blocks elsewhere.
Combined with section 89 of his report (previously referred to above) where he uses Condition 2 to protect against inappropriate scale (as represented by this amended design) these alone seem compelling reasons for rejecting this Application.
We therefore oppose this Application and indeed believe this remains a separate Application, distinct from the enabling site.
Finally three regulatory queries:
The Application is from Teifion Salisbury, but Cathelco Ltd are the registered owners of part of the land. Regardless that the Applicant is a Director, if the land is owned by a Limited Company, notice must be served on the company. No notice has been served on Cathelco.
The ownership of the remainder of the scheme, according to land registry is not Amos Group Limited but Sharks Development Hartington Ltd. So have the correct owners been notified?
There appears to be no new Yellow site notice with the new Application number. It is unlikely therefore that the public will realise there is a new Application.
APPENDIX ON VARIOUS DESIGNS AND SUBMISSIONS FOR PLOT 1
13/09/2011 Application 0896 PL (010) MAY 2011 Refused
15/03/2012 Appeal 2172196 PL (010) MAY 2011 Refused
13/10/2014 Application 1045 08 10/11 A AUGUST 2014 WITHDRAWN IN JANUARY 2015 08/50/51 A JANUARY 2015 AMMENDED (Smaller House) Refused
03/09/2015 Appeal 3053101* 08/50/51 C JANUARY 2015 (Smaller House) Approved
PL (010) MAY 2011 (SUBMITTED BUT WITHDRAWN)
Appellant’s Offer to accept Split Decision without PLOT 1
07/11/2015 Application 1110 08 10/11 A AUGUST 2014 (Application Withdrawn)
15/12/2015 Application 1281 08 10/11 A AUGUST 2014 (Current Application)
*Inspector’s Decision based on 08/50/51 C January 2015