1 to 9 homes at Land to the South of The Heath, Glossop

What was proposed

Permission in Principle was sought for between one and nine dwellings, with indicative homes up to two and a half storeys high.

“This application seeks Permission in Principle (PIP) for the construction of between 1-9 dwellings.”

“The Density Parameter Plan shows that the residential development east of the internal access would have a density of 35-40 dwellings per hectare, whilst residential development on the opposite side of the internal access has a slightly lower density of 30-35 dwellings per hectare.”

Officer report

The site

The site is about half a hectare beside The Heath, at Glossop’s northern edge, outside and not adjoining the built-up area boundary.

“This application relates to a parcel of land extending approximately 0.5ha situated adjacent to a private access road known at ‘The Heath’ which extends southwards from its junction with Cemetery Road, and the nearby Garden Centre, at the northern fringes of Glossop.”

“For the purposes of the Local Development Plan the site lies outside of and does not adjoin the built-up area boundary, and in the open countryside.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A previous proposal for 15 luxury tourist lodges was refused in 2022 and its appeal was dismissed in 2023.

“The site has been subject to planning history with the most recent being an application for 15no luxury tourist lodges being refused under HPK/2021/0222 in December 2022. An appeal was subsequently dismissed in December 2023.”

“It should be noted that the above application included additional land that extends beyond the boundary associated with this application.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers found limited countryside harm, no in-principle land-use or development-amount harm, and significant housing and economic benefits.

“Officers do not identify any harms arising from either the principle of housing in respect of the existing and proposed land use nor the amount of development, for the reasons outlined within this report.”

“In the overall planning balance, it is judged that the limited harm that exists as a consequence of the proposed development being situated within the open countryside is far outweighed by the direct and indirect socio-economic benefits that would derive from the delivery of up to 9 dwellings.”

Officer report

Objections from residents

Fourteen objections raised concerns about services, infrastructure, access safety, countryside, flooding, neighbours, trees, wildlife and biodiversity gain.

“- Lack of consideration for local services - Inadequate infrastructure to support development - Roads at maximum capacity - Safety concerns relating to the vehicular access - Type of application not appropriate (PIP) - Consideration must be given to dismissed appeal on this site for holiday lodge accommodation and the reasons for dismissing this appeal remain relevant (impact on rural landscape) - Impact on rural landscape and conflict with LP Policies EQ2 and EQ6 - Land…”

Officer report

Who addressed members

The committee heard from a residents’ representative opposing the application, the ward councillor and the agent.

What members debated

Members discussed highway access, refuse collection and the effect on the open countryside, alongside the limited scope of this application.

“The Committee had undertaken a site visit.”

“During the debate, members of the committee expressed concerns regarding matters relating to highways including access and suitability for refuse collection, together with the impact of the proposed development on the open countryside. The Head of Development Services reminded the committee that the scope of matters for consideration as part of this application is limited to location of the site, the type of land use proposed and the amount of development.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to refuse was lost, followed by a motion to approve that was moved, seconded and voted upon.

“Following a lengthy debate, a motion to refuse the application was moved and seconded and the meeting was adjourned and re-convened after a short period to allow the Council’s Solicitor, Head of Development Services and Planning Officer to draft detailed reasons for refusal based on the motion that had been put following the Committee’s deliberations for the Committee’s consideration. On being put to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was lost.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved as set out in the report, with delegated authority for non-substantive wording changes.

“That the application be approved as set out in the report; and…”

“That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.”

Minutes