Agenda item


Demolition of two polytunnels and erection of one dwelling (revised scheme of 20/01272/FL) at land to the north of School Farm Church Land and south of Conlands, Carr Lane, Brackenfield



(Planning Manager – Development Management)


Councillor H Liggett left the meeting.


The report to Committee explained that an application had been submitted for the demolition of two polytunnels and the erection of a single storey dwelling with windows in the roof at land to the north of School Farm Church Land and south of Conlands, Carr Lane, Brackenfield. It was a revised scheme of application 20/01272/FL, which had been withdrawn.


The Application had been referred to Committee by Local Ward Member, Councillor H Liggett, who had raised concerns about it.


The report explained the reasons why Members were recommended to refuse the Application. In particular, Committee was advised that the dwelling would be an inappropriate development in what was classed as an open countryside location.  It would impact adversely on the character of the village. It would also be detrimental to the distinctive landscape of the surrounding area.


Before Members discussed the Application those registered to speak were asked to address the Committee. Councillor C Cupit as Ward Member, A Towlerton and G Keeton spoke to oppose the Application. The Applicant, K Walker and the Agent for the Application, C Stainton, spoke in support of it.


Committee considered the Application. It took into account the relevant Planning Issues, It reflected on whether the proposed development would be compatible with local planning policies, including the provisions of the Brackenfield Neighbourhood Plan. It considered policy on sustainable development within the countryside. It also took into account the potential impact on the character, quality, distinctiveness, important features and views of the landscape


Members discussed the Application.  They noted the previous planning history for the site. They discussed its use as farmland. They considered whether the proposed dwelling could be classed as ‘infill’ and so an acceptable development in terms of the Brackenfield Neighbourhood Plan. They discussed the height of the proposed dwelling, its visibility from different locations and the impact this might have. They reflected on whether the dwelling would be in line with the National Planning Policy Framework NPPF, which requires that developments contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting valued landscapes.


At the conclusion of the discussion, Councillor D Ruff and Councillor A Powell moved and seconded a motion to reject the Application. The motion was put to the vote and approved by Committee.




(a)  That the application for planning permission be refused, in line with officer recommendations.


(b)  That the application be refused for the following reasons:


            The development site is located within open countryside to the north of the village of Brackenfield which is a level 4 village where development under countryside polices apply.


The site does not represent limited infill as it is located a considerable distance from the main part of the village with open field between it and other development to the south. The previous use of the site was agricultural and therefore cannot be considered to be previously developed land.


The land on which the site is located has been identified as one of the gaps between developments which characterises Brackenfield.  It also forms the foreground of an important view as outlined in the Brackenfield Neighbourhood Plan. Although the design of the building itself is not considered to be out of keeping with the area its siting, scale and massing makes it highly visible from important viewpoints, School Lane and public footpath 19. As such it is considered that it is an intrusion into the countryside and harms the character of the primary Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity.


There are no material considerations which outweigh these harms.


As such it is considered that the proposal does not meet the requirements of policies GS1, GS6, NE1 and H3 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan, Policies CH1, CH2, NE2 and H1 of the Brackenfield Neighbourhood Plan and polices SS1, SS8, SS9 and SDC3 of the Publication Draft Local Plan and the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework when read as a whole.


Supporting documents: