Car park extension at Dennis Knoll Car Park Hollin Bank Road Hathersage

Summary of planning committee decision

Deferred by Peak District Planning Committee on 5 Dec 2025.

NP/DDD/0925/0951Deferred

What was proposed

The application sought to enlarge the existing car park to about 60 spaces, with new access arrangements, surfacing, planting, bunding and signage.

“This application seeks full planning permission for the extension and enlargement of the existing Dennis Knoll carpark to provide approximately 60 car parking spaces.”

“The application also proposes the creation of a raised bund on the verge with the highway. The submitted planting scheme proposes the planting of several trees along the bund, in addition to several trees and shrub planting in the carpark itself. Additional planting is proposed on the eastern boundary of the site.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The existing pay-and-display car park serves the North Lees Estate and lies near designated monuments, woodland and internationally and nationally designated ecological sites.

“The site is Dennis Knoll Car Park, a pay and display carpark located approximately 2.7km north of Hathersage and approximately 2km to the east of Bamford on the eastern end of the North Lees Estate.”

“The application site is comprises the existing carpark, the road verge, grassland to the south of the woodland and the woodland itself. It is within the setting of scheduled monuments. These include Sheep wash Bank and Dennis Knoll, a Cairnfield (a pre- historic settlement and field system), and a Roman Road.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A 2001 lay-by parking extension was withdrawn, while a 2023 application for a solar-powered car park machine and associated works was granted conditionally.

“2001 – Extension of lay-by parking area (NP/DDD/0700/291) – Withdrawn. Standage Forum Steering Group advised the application should be withdrawn while a management plan is prepared for the area is prepared.”

“2023 - Installation of solar powered car park machine and associated base, pedestrian area and signage (NP/DDD/1222/1558) – Granted conditionally…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to a legal agreement and conditions, finding a demonstrable need and manageable landscape, heritage, ecological, biodiversity and highway effects.

“The application has demonstrated a demonstratable need for its enlargement. Subject to conditions, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon valued characteristics, adjacent scheduled monuments/archaeology, and would not negatively impact the ecological value of the site, nor impact the significance of the adjacent designated habitats.”

“This application is therefore recommended for conditional approval subject to the prior entry into a legal agreement.”

Officer report

What people said

Two representations supported the extension to address verge parking, while one objected over ecology, woodland loss, visibility, capacity and the lack of effective enforcement.

“The representations in support of the application cited the following: • One of the representations in support of the proposal was Deputy chair of the Stanage Steering Group. They stated that parking across the Estate is a problem which has only escalated over time. Considered the extension to be essential in the overall strategy of managing parking across the Estate. It is needed to eliminate the damaging verge parking.”

“The representation which objected cited the following reasons: • The ecology report states no ponds within 500m. There is a small pond within 500m, also a regularly flooded strip on the opposite side of the Causeway which provides a breeding place for frogs and toads thus supporting the migrant and resident birds. • You have not provided a factual argument for the removal of woodland and additional spaces; you are already creating many additional spaces at Hollin Bank.”

Officer report

Members’ discussion

Members recognised the road-parking problem but debated tree removal, visibility, enforcement, alternative layouts and stronger landscaping and tree protection.

“The following points were discussed: • There is a mature oak tree on the proposed site which would need chopping down, it was felt that to remove an oak tree to accommodate parking was not acceptable. • Members agreed that there is currently a massive problem with road parking. • The timeline for the Traffic Regulation Order was discussed. There is a reluctance to have a TRO due to the yellow lines however this is an effective way…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Members were minded to approve but deferred the application so the eastern landscaping could be amended and larger trees could receive more protection.

“Members were minded to approve the application however new plans were requested to incorporate more landscaping at the eastern end of the car park along with plans to protect more of the larger trees on site.”

“A motion to defer the application to allow for amendments to the landscaping at the eastern end of the car park along with amendments to protect some of the larger trees on site, was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried. The decision on the new proposals to be delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee.”

Minutes

Why it was deferred

The deferral allowed amendments to landscaping at the eastern end and agreement of changes to protect some larger trees on the site.

“To agree amendments to protect some of the larger trees on site.”

Minutes

The members' reasons

The resolution gives these reasons:

  1. To allow for amendments to the landscaping at the eastern end of the car- park.
Minutes

“Members agreed that there is currently a massive problem with road parking.”

“Members felt a management plan for the screening and planting at the Eastern End of the car park is required.”

“Members felt the plans should be looked at to protect some of the larger trees on the site. 15:30pm K Richardson left the room and returned at 15:34pm 15:33pm L Hartshorne left the room and returned at 15:35pm Members were minded to approve the application however new plans were requested to incorporate more landscaping at the eastern end of the car park along with plans to protect more of the larger trees on site.”

Minutes

Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.

Sources

  • Peak District Planning Committee minutes, 5 December 2025
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Peak District's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Date
Friday 5 December 2025
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Deferred
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)
Application
The application (council website)

This committee's year

31 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 4 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →