Self-build local needs dwelling at Land adjacent 25 Hernstone Lane Peak Forest

What was proposed

The application proposed a two-storey, three-bedroom self-build local-needs dwelling with amenity space, access, parking and turning space.

“The application is for the erection of a two storey, 3-bedroom dwelling on land to the south of Hernstone Lane, and immediately east of Hernstone Lodge. The application sets out that the development is for a local needs dwelling and would be self-build.”

“The site layout confirms the dwelling would benefit from amenity space to the front and rear. Access to the site would be from Hernstone Lane, with a driveway and turning space shown to the east of the dwelling.”

Officer report

The site

The site was grassed land beside Hernstone Lodge, south of Hernstone Lane, within the Conservation Area and near public rights of way.

“The application site comprises an area of grassed land associated with Hernstone Lodge which lies west of the site. The site is south of Hernstone Lane (A623), which runs through Peak Forest. It is within the Peak Forest and Old Dam Conservation Area and is considered to be on the edge of the settlement of Peak Forest. The site levels sit below that of the highway and the site is bound by an existing stone wall to the north.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications included an approved barn conversion and refused dwelling proposals, including an appeal dismissed in 1989.

“NP/HPK/0979/937: Barn conversion to living accommodation – Approved 1980.”

“NP/HPK/1188/182: Erection of dwelling and garage – Refused 1988. Appeal dismissed 1989. The Appeal decision concluded that whilst the occupants of the dwellings and farms in the building cluster would regard themselves as part of the Peak Forest community, in the physical and visual sense the scattered buildings to the south east of the village are physically separated from it by significant gaps of countryside.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the 100sqm dwelling too large for the identified one-person need and found less than substantial Conservation Area harm not outweighed by benefits.

“Whilst the dwelling design respects the character of surrounding buildings with regard to GSP3 and DMC3, its siting and parking would result in some harm to the Conservation Area and views to more open landscape, and some conflict with Policies L1 and DMC8. Harm to the Peak Forest Conservation Area is required to be weighed against the public benefits of the development under Policy DMC5 and paragraph 215 of the NPPF.”

“Officers acknowledge the resulting harm towards the Conservation Area has the potential to be outweighed by the public benefits of providing a local needs affordable dwelling to meet housing need. However, the proposal has been found to conflict with HC1 and DMH1 as the dwelling size exceeds that required to meet the identified housing need.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways accepted the access and parking, the Parish Council supported the application, and the National Park Authority objected to its size.

“Peak District National Park Authority (Policy): Whilst I acknowledge the applicant’s daughter is in housing need, the size of dwelling proposed does not reflect their housing need as required by DMH1, which for one person supports a dwelling size of 39sqm.”

Officer report

Changes before the meeting

The application had previously been deferred so the plans could be amended; the building was moved and reduced to 97 square metres.

“The Planning Officer presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal as detailed in the report. It was noted that this application had been discussed at the Planning Committee meeting on 5 December 2025 and that a decision on the application had been deferred in order to allow the applicant to amend the plans to alter the design of the scheme and to bring it within 97m 2 .”

“The Planning Officer confirmed that since the December meeting there has been a minor change and the building has been moved closer to number 25 by approximately 1.5m. The driveway and turning area have been altered and the size of the building reduced to 97m 2 . The principals used to make the recommendation of refusal are the ones…”

Minutes

Who spoke

The applicant spoke under the public participation scheme, and some members had visited the site.

What members debated

Members considered the building’s location, local need and whether material considerations supported an exception to policy.

“The location of the proposed building • Whether there was a Local Need in this area • Whether there were material considerations in this case to support an exception to policy…”

“The character of the street scene and a view that a small building would look incongruous in this context. 2. That a Local Need had been established and there was no other means of provision in this part of the National Park. 3. Future proofing of the building.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to approve, contrary to the officer recommendation and policy, subject to a legal agreement and conditions, was carried.

“A motion to approve the application, contrary to officer recommendation and contrary to policy, and subject to a S106 Legal Agreement, with the conditions outlined below, was proposed and seconded, put to the vote and carried.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions covering design, landscaping, drainage and other matters.

“That the application be APPROVED subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and with the following conditions:”

“Statutory time limit. 2. Accordance with approved plans.”

Minutes