Two-bedroom dwelling at Padley Mill Cottage, Unnamed Road From Station Road Westwards To Track Leading To A6187, Upper Padley, Grindleford

What was proposed

The application proposed converting and extending an existing timber barn into a two-bedroom dwelling with living accommodation and a first-floor deck.

“The proposal is to convert and extend an existing timber barn to create a two bedroom dwelling with ground floor living and dining / kitchen space, toilet, utility, double bedroom and en-suite. A deck area that could serve as a bedroom is proposed at first floor, with void over the remaining area.”

Officer report

Earlier committee decision

The application was previously recommended for refusal, but members were minded to approve, so the final decision was deferred for further consideration.

“The application was originally considered at the meeting of the Authority’s Planning Committee on the 10 th April 2026 (to be referred to here as “the first report”). The application was recommended for refusal but Members were minded to approve.”

“The Authority’s Standing Orders (Section1.48) state that where a Committee is proposing to make a decision which would be a departure from policy and/or the Officer recommendation, final determination shall be deferred until the next meeting.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers said the proposal did not demonstrate a material reason to depart from policies requiring new housing to meet affordable housing need.

“The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision-making. Where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan (including any neighbourhood plans that form part of the development plan), permission should not usually be granted.”

“This planning application does not demonstrate any material considerations to indicate departure from the Local Plan. The first report recommended that the application be refused because the proposed dwelling would not address a proven need for affordable housing and is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policy HC1.A and Development Management Policy DMH1.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Senior Policy Planner presented the report, and the applicant spoke under the public participation scheme.

What members discussed

Members discussed affordable housing definitions, medical need, dwelling size, local housing, policy fairness and the consequences of approving the proposal.

“The Authority Solicitor asked that all those Members absent from the previous Planning Committee meeting in April 2026 confirm that they had read all the documents associated with this application prior to taking part in the discussion. If Members had read all the documents, then they would be able to participate in the vote.”

“Clarification was provided regarding the definition of “affordable housing” and how it has been assessed. The main basis for the argument against approving the application is that the applicant does not have a local need for affordable housing. • The medical need element to the policy was discussed. • The size of the proposed development was discussed. • Whether the benefits of providing an affordable house in perpetuity outweigh the breaches of policy.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A motion to refuse was moved, seconded and carried.

“A motion to refuse the application was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee refused the application because the proposed dwelling would not address a proven need for affordable housing and conflicted with policies HC1 and DMH1.

“That the application be REFUSED for the following reason: 1. The proposed dwelling would not address a proven need for affordable housing and is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policy HC1.A and Development Management Policy DMH1.”

Minutes