Chestnut Centre, Slackhall

Chestnut Centre, Slackhall Planning Statement:

Historic Buildings Scheme and New Dwelling Scheme

Mr and Mrs Heap April 2020

Chestnut Centre – Planning Statement April 2020

2

CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 3

2. SITE DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND ........................................................................................ 5

3. APPLICATION PROPOSALS ...................................................................................................... 10

4. ENHANCEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSALS ......................................................... 13

5. PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 16

6. PLANNING POLICY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 20

7. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 39


3

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This Planning Statement has been prepared on behalf of the applicants, Mr and Mrs Heap, in

support of separate applications at the former Chestnut Centre Wildlife Park for:

• planning permission and listed building consent for proposals at the existing farmhouse, shippon (cattle shed) and annex; and separately

• planning permission to the land covered by the former ticket office, animal enclosures and overspill car park.

1.2 The first proposal seeks planning permission and listed building consent for “the conversion of the shippon to one residential dwelling, conversion of the small barn to ancillary accommodation/holiday accommodation to Chestnut Farmhouse, internal and external works to the buildings and house, change of use of the associated land to residential, works of hard and soft landscaping, car parking, and other works incidental to the application proposals” (“the Historic Buildings Scheme”).

1.3 The second proposal seeks planning permission for the “removal of some animal enclosures, demolition of ticket office, removal of overspill car parking, erection of one residential dwelling, installation of package treatment plant, change of use of land around the site to residential, reinstatement of parkland, works of hard and soft landscaping and other works incidental to the application” (“the New Dwelling Scheme”).

1.4 This submission follows pre application discussions with the Peak District National Park Authority (“PDNPA”) regarding the proposals.

1.5 The proposals have been designed by Peak Architects, with landscaping design by Weddle Landscape Design. Heritage advice has been provided by Kathryn Sather and Associates.

1.6 This Statement sets out the background to the site, outlines the two sets of proposals and assesses how these comply with the relevant planning policy and guidance at local and national level.

1.7 The following documents are also submitted in support of the applications for the Historic Buildings Scheme:

• Existing and Proposed Drawings – Peak Architects;

• Design and Access Statement – Peak Architects;

• Heritage Statement – Kathryn Sather and Associates;

• Landscape Scheme – Weddle Landscape Design;

• Ecological Impact Assessment – Peak Ecology;

• Tree Survey – Weddle Landscape Design;

• Sustainability Statement – Peak Architects.

1.8 The following documents are submitted in support of the New Dwelling Application:

• Existing and Proposed Drawings – Peak Architects;


4

• Design and Access Statement – Peak Architects;

• Heritage Statement – Kathryn Sather and Associates;

• Landscape Scheme – Weddle Landscape Design;

• Ecological Impact Assessment – Peak Ecology;

• Tree Survey – Weddle Landscape Design;

• Sustainability Statement – Peak Architects;

• Landscape and Visual Appraisal – Weddle Landscape Design;

• Flood Risk Assessment – EWE Associates.

1.9 This Statement should be read alongside the application drawings and other technical reports submitted in support of each applications.

1.10 Chapter 2 will now outline the site and its context.


5

2. SITE DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND 2.1 The former Chestnut Centre is located within the settlement known as Slackhall, which is

located circa 2 miles northeast of Chapel-en-le-Frith.

2.2 The site is accessed through gates just off Sheffield Road, which forms the boundary of part of the east side of the site. A lane leading to the village of Ford Hall forms the western boundary of the site.

2.3 Historically the site formed part of Ford Hall with the entrance to the house at the southern end of the site, with the drive sweeping in a north east to south west direction across the site, until the river when it turned back on itself to the house.

2.4 More recent the site has been used as the Chestnut Centre, a wildlife park which utilized the existing buildings on the southern part of the site around the entrance and the associated land for parking. Access to the wildlife park was along the former access road to a number of enclosures along the river houses a range of wildlife including otters and owls. The Chestnut Centre closed in 2007 and the remains in the ownership of the applicants who ran the park and live at Ford Hall.

2.5 The Historic Buildings Scheme site contains three buildings, a former Quaker burial ground, gates and the former access road to Ford Hall and parking areas. Chestnut Farmhouse (Building B) is sited to the south, with the former shippon which was used as an education centre with toilets and changing facilities (Building C) to its rear to the north and an annex used as an office (Building A) to the west. The gate posts and access road and original car parking area are sited further to the west of the buildings.

2.6 The New Dwelling Scheme site includes the former ticket office/café which is located partially across the historic drive to Ford Hall, entrance gates, an area of overspill car park cut into the hillside and is then linked to the existing animal enclosures along the river.

2.7 The location of both sites is shown in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 below. Photographs of both application sites are included within the Design and Access Statements submitted in support of each application.


6

Figure 2.1: Location of the site

Figure 2.2 Aerial view of the site


7

Figure 2.3: Existing buildings on site

2.8 There are a number of existing animal enclosures alongside the river and these are of a range of sizes and forms of construction. These are detailed within the Ecological Impact Assessment which accompanies the New Dwelling Application, and the location of these is shown at Figure 2.4 (taken from the Ecological Impact Assessment).

Figure 2.4: Existing Animal Enclosures

2.9 The site is partially located within the Slackhall and Ford Hall Conservation Area, and the proposals map identify a number of important open spaces within the Conservation Area (see Figure 2.5).

2.10 The Chestnut Farmhouse and two tombstones within the Quaker Burial Yard within the application site are Grade II listed. Within the vicinity of the site are a number of other Grade II listed properties including Toll Bar Cottage which is located to the north east of Chestnut Farmhouse and Ford Hall to the north of the site.


8

Key

Figure 2.5: Conservation Area and Listed Buildings

2.11 There are a number of trees across the whole site, and these are detailed within the Tree Survey which accompanies each application.

2.12 The site is in Flood Zone 1 and not at risk of flooding.

Figure 2.5: Flood Risk

2.13 There are no public footpaths through the site, but there are a number of public footpaths within the local area. This is considered further within the Landscape and Visual Appraisal submitted in support of the application for the New Dwelling Scheme.


9

Figure 2.6: Footpaths around the site.

2.14 There have been a number of applications at the site including the extension to the existing car park to create the overspill area in 2006 (App Ref NP/HPK/0703/085) and the erection of the ticket office.

2.15 Chapter 3 will now outline the design development process and the application proposals.


10

3. APPLICATION PROPOSALS 3.1 Full details of the proposals, including the pre application proposals, are outlined in the Design

and Access Statements prepared by Peak Architects which accompany each application.

Pre Application Discussions

3.2 The application proposals have been the subject of a number of rounds of pre application discussions with Officers at the PDNPA.

3.3 Following Officer’s advice the number of new build houses proposed was reduced from two to one, and further steps were undertaken to ensure the visibility of the new dwelling would be limited within the landscape.

The Historic Buildings Scheme

3.4 The application proposes the following works:

• Some limited internal and external works to the Grade II Listed Chestnut Farmhouse (Building B).

• Change of use of the former office to ancillary accommodation or holiday accommodation, to be associated with Chestnut Farmhouse and the necessary internal and external alterations. This building is referred to as the Annex (Building A).

• Change of use of the former shippon, which has since been used as toilets, changing area and education centre as part of the overall use of the site, to an open market residential unit (Building C).

• The use of the areas around each building as amenity space to these properties.

• The reduction in the area of hardstanding within the former car park area, with the provision of sufficient car parking and turning space only for the properties.

3.5 The layout of the shippon has been designed to have regard to the adjacent Chestnut Farmhouse and obscured glazing is proposed to the rear of the shippon to ensure privacy is maintained between the two properties. The primary aspect to the shippon will be to the front of the site.

3.6 The Annex and Farmhouse will be provided with car parking to the west of the main entrance. Parking and access to the shippon is from the north of the building, within the area in front of the shippon providing access and amenity space to the building.

3.7 Other areas of existing car parking will be re-landscaped, as outlined within the Landscape Scheme for the application.

New Dwelling Scheme

3.8 This scheme proposes the removal of the existing ticket office building. This is a modern building and is partially constructed on the historic entrance drive to Ford Hall. Its removal will enhance the visibility of this historic route, and this will be further reinforced through the landscaping proposals for the site.

3.9 The majority of the existing enclosures alongside the river will be removed. A small number will be retained, and the land will return to form part of Ford Hall. The retained enclosures


11

will either be used to store garden machinery and other implements for the maintenance of the woodland or for some small scale animal rescue needs, associated with the applicants’ ongoing involved in wildlife conservation.

3.10 The overspill car park area has altered the natural landscape topography of the site and some of the historic views towards Ford Hall have been lost due to the creation of the parking areas and planting of trees at the edges of the parking areas.

3.11 The proposals aim to regrade the topography of the natural slope, with a new dwelling positioned to work within these regraded contours to conceal it as much as possible, whilst reinstating the views through the site and reconnecting to the historic route.

3.12 The position of the new dwelling has been carefully considered to work with the natural topography of the site to make the most efficient use of the land and integrate the building into its surroundings. The regraded topography is used as a basis from which to position the new dwelling for minimal visual impact and to work with the natural contours of the landscape.

3.13 The landscape of the site is proposed to run up to the top of a low wall at the front of the dwelling, helping to conceal the garden and terraced area.

3.14 The new dwelling is proposed to sit in a subterranean form following the gradient of the site so that it will not have an adverse impact on views of the parkland or on views from the parkland back towards Slackhall.

3.15 The main element of the building is single storey and set into the hillside with a green roof to blend into the surrounding landscape. Narrow rooflights will provide light to the rear of the house.

3.16 The plan of the dwelling has been designed in an angle to work most effectively with the contours and to allow a paved terrace to the front of the house. The habitable rooms all face down the hillside connected by rear circulation spaces. Additional ancillary space and non-habitable rooms are to the rear of the dwelling set into the hillside.

3.17 To avoid the need for an access driveway around the building, the entrance to the dwelling is via a small building at upper level with staircase and platform lift. This is the only element of the new dwelling that will be visible from the main entrance.

3.18 A garden store set within the hillside provides integral storage to prevent future need for sheds or additional storage buildings. The position of the garden terrace aims to maximise privacy and shield users from view enhancing the concept of a hidden building.

3.19 Whilst the subterranean element of the dwelling is designed not to be seen, the form of the visible entrance element is designed to complement the existing cluster of historic buildings.

3.20 The small scale and simple design of the entrance element sits alongside the existing buildings as a contemporary interpretation which emphasizes the historic nature of the existing buildings rather than mimics them, whilst respecting their scale and massing.

3.21 The pitched faceted roof reinterprets the traditional pitched roofs of the historic buildings in a contemporary form, whilst the base is wrapped by traditional style drystone walls which tie into the existing drystone walls on the site.


12

3.22 Proposed materials for the subterranean element to the new dwelling include stone walls to complement those already on site, glazed windows and doors to maximise views out, timber fins to add visual interest to the façades (and provide an element of privacy to the rooms which face onto the garden) and a green roof to tie into the rest of the site. The timber fins and stone wall break up and reduce the amount of glazing whilst still enabling views from each habitable room.

3.23 Proposed materials for the entrance element to the new dwelling include drystone walls to tie into the existing walls on site and wrap the base of the building. For the faceted roof and upper section of walls, a black standing seam zinc has been proposed as a subtle and complementary material. Timber fins will be used at the front to provide privacy to the entrance and visually link with the timber fins to the facade of the subterranean element.

3.24 As outlined in the Sustainability Statement included as part of the application the scheme would be highly energy efficient and a range of measures would be included to reduce the reliance on carbon within the proposed dwelling.

3.25 The dwelling has been designed using a ‘fabric first’ approach, prioritising design and construction to improve thermal performance and reduce the need for energy. Design elements that utilise this approach include large amounts of thermal insulation, high-performance window and doors and good overall air-tightness to reduce draughts and the escape of warm air.

3.26 There is potential to include a ground source heat pump (GSHP) as part of the energy strategy. GSHPs use pipes that are buried underground to extract heat from the ground, which is then used to heat radiators, underfloor or warm air heating systems and hot water in the home. As the ground stays at a fairly constant temperature under the surface, the heat pump can be used throughout the year. The overall energy demand is reduced as the heat extracted from the air is constantly being renewed naturally and the reliance on electricity or gas for heating is reduced.

3.27 Sufficient parking would be provided on site and all vehicles would be able to turn around and leave the site in a forward gear.

3.28 Chapter 4 will now outline the enhancements associated with the proposals.


13

4. ENHANCEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSALS 4.1 As discussed further in Chapter 6 of this Statement a key consideration in respect of both the

proposed schemes are the enhancements associated with each proposal, and the cumulative enhancements across the whole site as a result of these cumulatively.

4.2 This section identifies the key enhancements arising from the proposals. These issues are discussed in further detail within the supporting documentation submitted as part of each application.

4.3 In summary, the implementation of the application proposals would result in the loss of the current use of the site as a wildlife park as the removal of the associated facilities including ticket office, toilets, car parking, animal enclosures and entrance would mean that the wider site could no longer function as a wildlife park.

Highways

4.4 The Chestnut Centre was visited by approximately 46,800 people each year. The breakdown of visitors was roughly as follows with visitors records broadly consistent over a number of years:

o Jan 1200 o Feb 2200 o Mar 2700 o Apr 6500 o May 4700 o June 4000 o July 5000 o Aug 8800 o Sept 3500 o Oct 4000 o Nov 2700 o Dec 1500 o Total 46800

4.5 On the basis that the vast majority of visitors came by car this the proposals would result in a reduction of 18,000 two way trips to the site per annum.

4.6 Around 180 school coach trips were also made each year to the Centre with the majority of these between the Easter holidays and summer holidays. Again the proposals will result in the removal of these trips to the site.

4.7 In addition to this there were associated vehicle trips relating to deliveries for the café and shop, maintenance, veterinary services and refuse.

4.8 The vehicle movements associated with the proposals will be minimal and would only relate to three new dwellings, given that the cottage is already within residential use.

Landscape & Trees

4.9 The removal of the car park overspill extension would have significant landscape benefits, with a reduction in the area of development and the return of part of the car park extension to grassland.


14

4.10 The existing ticket office/café is also in a more prominent position than the proposed new dwellings and its removal would enhancement the appearance and openness of the site.

4.11 A number of lower quality trees will be removed from the site and the more important trees protected during works across the site.

4.12 The proposed new dwelling uses the change in level across the site to reduce its scale. The design will have a minimal impact in landscape terms and their layout, form and profile including the incorporation of a green roof means that in short and longer term views visibility of the dwelling will be minimal.

4.13 The Landscape and Visual Assessment submitted in support of the New Dwelling Scheme application concludes that “Reinstatement, protection and enhancement of the most significant landscape features, which provide visual containment, combined with a robust landscape framework which would provide landscape and biodiversity enhancements, would result in a long-term neutral to moderate beneficial effect on landscape features, a negligible beneficial effect on landscape character areas, a negligible beneficial to moderate beneficial visual effect and a positive response to landscape related policy at National and Local levels”.

Ecology

4.14 There is an ecological benefit to the wider site in the removal of non native species such as the giant otters from the river.

4.15 The reduction in the footfall through the park and along the river will also benefit the wider site and the Ecological Impact Assessment submitted in support of the application for the new dwelling concludes that “The decrease in human activity, and the associated reduction of traffic and noise disturbance as a result of the change of use from a tourist attraction to a residential dwelling is likely to benefit the site and the wildlife that it supports, on a local scale”.

4.16 It is proposed that the car park extension be replanted, potentially with flowering grassland. Any new boundaries would be native hedgerows. These improvements and enhancements including restoration of the car parks to previous or more natural gradients with meadow seeding, the creation of hedgerows and a level of tree planting are considered likely to increase biodiversity significantly, particularly around the car park area which is currently dominated by hardstanding.

4.17 New bat and bird boxes would be included within the scheme, over and above that required for any mitigation.

4.18 The roofs of the new home would be a green roofs.

4.19 The reduction in the associated traffic with the former use of the site will also significantly improve air quality within the local area.

Design and Heritage

4.20 The removal of the ticket office, which is non traditional in its form and footprint, would be an enhancement to the site allowing the historic route to Ford Hall to be read.

4.21 Its removal from the site would improve the setting of the historic buildings and allow the traditional arrangement of the cottage and barns to be read together.


15

4.22 The proposals give the financial impetus to refurbish the existing cottage which is currently in a poor state of repair.

4.23 The proposals would also give a future alternative use to the two barns, allowing for their refurbishment.

4.24 The removal of the ticket office would also enhance the setting of Tollbar Cottage by returning the existing buildings within the setting of this property to their original farmstead arrangement.

4.25 The site proposed for the new dwelling is further removed from the historic farmyard area and in an area previously developed by being regraded and altered in the creation of the parking areas.

4.26 Due to the natural fall of the land, the new house is set below the level of the ground at the historic stone access gates, so following the removal of the recently planted belt of trees and regrading of the former car park area views through to the former parkland will be reinstated and uninterrupted over towards Ford Hall.

4.27 Chapter 5 will now outline the planning policy context for the determination of the proposals.


16

5. PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions

to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The Courts have held that the Government’s statements of planning policy are such ‘material considerations’ which must be taken into account, where relevant, in decisions on planning applications.

National Planning Policy Framework

5.3 At the national level, the Revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) outlines guidance which is relevant to the proposals.

5.4 The NPPF at Paragraph 8 outlines that there are three overarching objectives of the planning system in achieving sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Importantly the NPPF states that all of these dimensions must be satisfied.

5.5 Chapter 12 requires Local Authorities to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings.

5.6 Paragraph 127 outlines that planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments:

• will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;

• are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping;

• are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities);

• establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit…”

5.7 Paragraph 131 states that:

“In determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings.”

5.8 Chapter 15 addresses the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. In particular Paragraph 170 states that:

“Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

• protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality);


17

• recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland;

• maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it;

• minimising impacts and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;

• preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air quality; and

• remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.”

5.9 At Paragraph 172 the NPPF states that

“Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.”

5.10 Chapter 16 deals within the historic environment and with regards to heritage that:

• In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting (Paragraph 189)

• Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal (Paragraph 190)

• In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: o the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and

putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; o the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable

communities including their economic vitality; and o the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character

and distinctiveness (Paragraph 192)

• When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be) (Paragraph 193)

• When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, NPPF states that local planning authorities should give great weight to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset the greater this weight


18

should be. Any harm to, or loss of, significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification (para. 194).

• Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance

of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use (para 196).

• NPPF also recommends that local authorities should treat favourably those proposals that preserve elements of a heritage asset’s setting that make a positive contribution to its significance (para. 200).

5.11 Further guidance where any harm is considered to be caused to a heritage asset is set out

within Chapter 16 of the NPPF.

Planning Practice Guidance

5.12 On 6 March 2014 the DCLG published the Planning Practice Guidance (“PPG”) web-based guidance, and this has been the subject of a number of subsequent updates. As it takes the form of guidance, rather than a statement of policy, this has less weight than the NPPF.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY

5.13 The Development Plan for the area comprises

• PDNPA Core Strategy (October 2011);

• PDNPA Development Management Policies (DMP) document (adopted May 2019); and

• Chapel en le Frith Neighbourhood Plan (August 2015).

Core Strategy

5.14 Within the Core Strategy the following policies are of particular relevance to the appeal proposals:

• Policy GSP1: Securing National Park purposes and sustainable development

• Policy GSP2: Enhancing the National Park

• Policy GSP3: Development management principles

• Policy DS1: Development Strategy

• Policy L1: Landscape character and valued characteristics

• Policy L3: Cultural Heritage assets of archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic significance

• Policy RT2: Hotels, bed and breakfast and self catering accommodation

• Policy CC1: Climate change mitigation and adaption

• Policy CC5: Flood risk and water conservation

• Policy HC1: New housing


19

Development Management Policies

5.15 Within the Development Management Polices document (May 2019) the following policies are relevant:

• Policy DMC1: Conservation and enhancement of nationally significant landscapes

• Policy DMC3: Siting, design, layout and landscaping

• Policy DMC5: Assessing the impact of development on designated and non designated heritage assets and their settings

• Policy DMC7: Listed Buildings

• Policy DMC8: Conservation Areas

• Policy DMC10: Conversion of a Heritage Asset

• Policy DMC11: Safeguarding, recording and enhancing nature conservation interests

• Policy DMC12: Sites, features or species of wildlife, geological or geomorphological importance

• Policy DMC13: Protecting trees, woodland or other landscape features put at risk by development

• Policy DMH5: Ancillary buildings in the curtilages of existing dwellings by conversion or new build

• Policy DMH6: Redevelopment of previously developed land to dwelling use

• Policy DMT8: Residential off -street parking

Chapel en le Frith Neighbourhood Plan

5.16 Within the Neighbourhood Plan the following policies are of relevance:

• Policy H3: Design Criteria

• Policy TR1: Information Required to Support Planning Applications

• Policy C2: Biodiversity

Other Material Considerations

5.17 The following documents have also been adopted as Supplementary Planning Documents and are material considerations in the determination of any planning application:

• Design Guide (2007)

• Alterations and Extensions SPD (July 2014)

5.18 The Design Guides state that the principle of extension is acceptable subject to the design and relationship with the original building being acceptable.

5.19 The Slackhall and Ford Hall Conservation Area Appraisal is also a material consideration.

5.20 The key planning policy issues will now be considered at Chapter 6.


20

6. PLANNING POLICY ASSESSMENT 6.1 The following section outlines a review of the key planning policy considerations relevant to

the application proposals.

6.2 The application proposals are considered separately, with the new dwelling, removal of the ticket office and animal enclosures application referred to as the “New Dwelling Scheme” and the proposed conversion and works to the historic buildings which require applications for planning permission and listed building consent referred to together as the “Historic Buildings Scheme”.

Major Development

New Dwelling Scheme

6.3 Paragraph 172 of the NPPF states that for locations including the National Parks:

“The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited. Planning permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.”

6.4 The footnote to this states that “For the purposes of paragraphs 172 and 173, whether a proposal is ‘major development’ is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its nature, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined.”

6.5 The application is major development as the site covers an area of greater than 1 hectare. This is to ensure that the application includes both the land associated with the existing ticket office, overspill car parking area and new dwelling and the enclosures which are to be removed alongside the river. The majority of the work within the red line relates to the removal of existing structures and areas of hardstanding, and the proposals only relate to the erection of one new dwelling.

6.6 Usually, when considering proposals for new homes and whether applications are ‘major’ development the threshold relates to schemes in excess of 10 residential units. In this instance the proposals are for a significantly smaller scale proposal than this. Even taking this application into account alongside the proposals for the conversion of the existing buildings to residential would only give a cumulative uplift of two residential units and a total of three units taking into account the existing farmhouse.

6.7 Furthermore, in terms of floorspace the threshold is scheme in excess of 1,000 sq.m. The floorspace of the new dwelling is circa 379 sq.m and is again significantly below this threshold.

6.8 The vehicular trip associated with the proposals will be significantly lower than those associated with the lawful use of the site as outlined at Chapter 4 of this Statement.


21

Furthermore, and as outlined in Chapter 4 of this Statement, there are a significant number of benefits associated with the proposals.

6.9 It is therefore considered that for the purposes of Paragraph 172 of the NPPF the proposals should not be concluded to constitute major development.

Historic Building Scheme

6.10 For clarity the Historic Building Scheme is not an application for major development and does not meet any of the required thresholds.

Principle of Development

New Dwelling Scheme

6.11 Paragraph 84 of the NPPF, in considering ‘Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy’ states that “…The use of previously developed land, and sites that are physically well-related to existing settlements, should be encouraged where suitable opportunities exist.”

6.12 Paragraph 117 of the NPPF outlines that “Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land”.

6.13 The Glossary at Annex 2 of the NPPF defines ‘Previously Developed Land’ as “Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure…”. It is therefore clear that the proposals are for land which meets the definition of previously developed land.

6.14 At the local level, Development Management Policies (“DMP”) Policy DMH6 ‘Re-development of previously developed land to dwelling use’ states that:

“Re-development of previously developed land for housing will be permitted provided that:

(i) the development conserves and enhances the valued character of the built environment or landscape on, around or adjacent to the site; and

(ii) where the land is inside or on the edge of a Core Strategy policy DS1 settlement, and subject to viability, an element of the housing addresses local need for affordable housing potentially including starter home or custom or self-build housing provision”.

6.15 The supporting text to Policy DMH6 states that consideration should be given to Core Strategy policies DS1 and GSP2. Policy GSP2 ‘Enhancing the National Park’ seeks to enhance the appearance of sites within the National Park in order to offer significant overall benefit to the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area. Policy DS1 ‘Development Strategy’ outlines the overall objectives for new development, including allowing development and alternative uses needed to secure effective conservation and enhancement.

6.16 Taking part (ii) of Policy DMH6 first, the site is not located within a Policy DS1 settlement, and therefore there is no requirement to provide affordable local needs housing.


22

6.17 Turning to part (i) the proposals include the removal of the existing ticket office, which is a relatively modern building which is non traditional in its proportions, and interrupts views from the entrance of the site along the historic route towards Ford Hall.

6.18 As concluded within the Heritage Statement which accompanies this application the removal of this building enhances the appearance of the site and opens up the historic route from the entrance of the site to Ford Hall, which is currently partially blocked by the ticket office.

6.19 The proposals would also result in the regrading of the overspill car parking and new wildflower meadow planting across a large part of this area.

6.20 The removal of the majority of the enclosures along the river also further enhance the valued character of landscape within the site. Other benefits of the overall proposals, as outlined at Chapter 5, include the conversion and future viable use of the historic buildings, the associated reduction in vehicle trips to the site and the wider planting, landscape and ecological enhancements.

6.21 The proposed new dwelling will have minimal landscape impact, and as concluded within the Landscape and Visual Appraisal. The only clearly visible element will be the small entrance building to the new dwelling and this was be largely screened by and hidden within the existing tree cover. The proposed new dwelling is largely hidden below ground, with only the front elevation visible. The levels around the front of the house have been regraded to their original profile and the house sits within these, with a berm at the edge of the garden to screen the visibility of the front elevation and define the extent of the curtilage.

6.22 It is therefore considered that the principle of the proposed new dwelling, along with the significant enhancement of the site associated with the other proposed works, is acceptable in principle and accords with national and local planning policy considerations.


6.23 The application proposes the conversion of the existing shippon to provide a new residential dwelling. The proposals also include the conversion of the former office to provide an Annex to the Chestnut Farmhouse which will either be used flexibly as holiday accommodation or ancillary accommodation.

6.24 Both buildings are curtilage listed due to their association with the Grade II listed Chestnut Farmhouse.

6.25 With regards to the proposals for the shippon, Core Strategy Policy HC1 ‘New Housing’ states that

“Provision will not be made for housing solely to meet open market demand. Housing land will not be allocated in the development plan. Exceptionally, new housing (whether newly built or from re-use of an existing building) can be accepted where (inter alia):

C - In accordance with core policies GSP1 and GSP2:

I) it is required in order to achieve conservation and/or enhancement of valued vernacular or listed buildings; or…”

6.26 As noted above, Core Strategy Policy GSP2 outlines objectives for enhancing the National Park. As outlined at Chapter 4 of this Statement the application proposals include a range of


23

enhancements to the site. In particular, the proposals for the shippon include works to enhance the appearance of the building both internally and externally and the open market use of the building would make this financially viable. These works would also result in alterations to the appearance of the shippon which is more sympathetic to its historic use and appearance.

6.27 Furthermore, in the absence of the former use of the site as a wildlife park the shippon has no viable future use. The proposals would provide a viable future use for this building to the benefit of the site, the Conservation Area and the local area as a whole.

6.28 It is therefore considered that the principle of the conversion of the Shippon to open market residential is acceptable and the scheme complies with local and national policy objectives.

6.29 With regards to the Annex, it is proposed that this would be used as either ancillary accommodation to the Farmhouse or as holiday accommodation – again owned and controlled by the Farmhouse. Planning permission is sought for a flexible use of the building.

6.30 DMP Policy DMH5 ‘Ancillary dwellings in the curtilages of existing dwellings by conversion or new build’ states that:

A. “The conversion of an outbuilding close to a dwelling, to ancillary dwelling use will be permitted provided that:

(i) it would not result in an over-intensive use of the property, an inadequate standard of accommodation or amenity space, or create a planning need for over intensive development of the property at a later date through demand for further outbuildings; and

(ii) the site can meet the parking and access requirements of the proposed development; and

(iii) the new accommodation provided would remain within the curtilage of the main house, accessed via the same access route, sharing services and utilities, and remain under the control of the occupier of the main dwelling”.

6.31 In response to these criteria, the proposals would make good use of an existing building which is located within the curtilage of the existing farmhouse. The conversion of the building would provide a good standard of accommodation and a small area of its own amenity space if required. Sufficient parking space would be provided within the site for the property and the annex would share services with the farmhouse. It is therefore considered that the principle of the use of the Annex as ancillary accommodation to the Chestnut Farmhouse is acceptable.

6.32 With regards to the use of the Annex as holiday accommodation Core Strategy Policy RT2 ‘Hotels, bed and breakfast and self-catering accommodation’ outlines that the change of use of a traditional building of historic or vernacular merit to serviced or self-catering holiday accommodation will be permitted, except where it would create unacceptable landscape impact in open countryside.

6.33 As noted above, and within the Heritage Statement which accompanies the application, the Annex has sufficient historic and vernacular merit to warrant conversion to holiday accommodation. The use of the building would only require small external alterations to replace the windows and doors, and the area of amenity space associated with the proposals


24

would not be visible in the wider landscape. It is therefore considered that the conversion of the building to holiday accommodation would accord with the objectives of Policy RT2.

6.34 The requirements of DMP Policy DMC10 ‘Conversion of a heritage asset’ are also a consideration for this application. This outlines that the conversion of a heritage asset will be permitted provided that a number of criteria are met. These are assessed below.

i. it can accommodate the new use without changes that adversely affect its character (such changes include enlargement, subdivision or other alterations to form and mass, inappropriate new window openings or doorways and major rebuilding): the proposals required very minimal external alterations, with the existing openings utilized within each building.

ii. the building is capable of conversion, the extent of which would not compromise the significance and character of the building; the conversion of both the Annex and Shippon can be achieved without any impact on the significance or character of the building. This is considered further within the Heritage Statement submitted in support of the application.

iii. the changes brought about by the new use, and any associated infrastructure (such as access and services), conserves or enhances the heritage significance of the asset, its setting (in accordance with policy DMC5), any valued landscape character, and any valued built environment: As noted within this Statement there are a significant number of enhancements associated with the wider proposals, and this application. It is considered that the proposed use of the buildings would be an appropriate use.

iv. the new use of the building or any curtilage created would not be visually intrusive in its landscape or have an adverse impact on tranquillity, dark skies or other valued characteristics: The existing buildings have been used for non agricultural uses and there has been activity associated with these which is not typical of their historic use. The proposals would reduce the number of people visiting the site along with their associated traffic and noise, increasing the tranquility of the area. Lighting to the buildings would be minimal and the buildings are not prominent in the landscape.

6.35 In all cases attention will be paid to the impact of domestication and urbanisation brought about by the use on landscape character and the built environment including:

i. the supply of utility and infrastructure services, including electricity, water and waste disposal to support residential use: the site is already served by these serviced and these would continue to be utilised.

ii. the provision of safe vehicular access: the existing vehicular access to the site would be used.

iii. the provision of adequate amenity space and parking: sufficient car parking and amenity space would be provided.

iv. the introduction of a domestic curtilage: the domestic curtilage to each property would be limited.


25

v. the alteration of agricultural land and field walls: Not relevant to these proposals.

vi. any other engineering operation associated with the development: Not relevant to these proposals.

6.36 It is therefore considered that the conversion of the Shippon and Annex would meet the criteria set out in DMP Policy DMH5.

Design of the Proposals

6.37 Chapter 12 of the NPPF outline the Government’s objectives in terms of promoting good design and this is supported by the PPG. In particular Paragraph 127 states that proposals should be supported which respond to local character and reflect the identity of local surrounding and materials.

6.38 Paragraph 131 states that “In determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings”.

6.39 At local level Policy GSP3 ‘Development Management Principles’ sets out the Authority’s development management policies, requiring all development to respect, conserve and enhance all valued characteristics of the site and buildings that are subject to the development proposal.

6.40 DMP Policy DMC3 ‘Siting, design, layout and landscaping’ and states that “Where development is acceptable in principle, it will be permitted provided that its detailed treatment is of a high standard that respects, protects and where possible enhances the natural beauty, quality and visual amenity of the landscape, including the wildlife and cultural heritage that contribute to the distinctive sense of place”.

6.41 At Part B a number of criteria are outlined which should be given particular attention. These objectives are reflected in the Neighbourhood Plan Policy H3 ‘Design Criteria’ and both are considered in turn below.

6.42 DMP Policy DMC14 ‘Pollution and disturbance’ seeks to ensure that proposals do not give rise to issues including pollution or disturbance including soil, air, light, water or noise pollution.

The New Dwelling Scheme

6.43 In summary the proposals can be assessed as follows having regard to the policy requirements:

• The removal of the ticket office and structures within the site is acceptable and will enhance the site, and does not need to be given any further consideration in design terms;

• The proposals aim to regrade the topography of the natural slope, with a new dwelling positioned to work within these regraded contours to conceal it as much as possible, whilst reinstating the views through the site through the removal of a small number of trees and the ticket office and reconnecting to the historic route.

• The design process looked at regrading the contours of the landscape to remove the stepped car park areas. This regraded topography was then used as a basis from which to


26

position the new dwelling for minimal visual impact and to work with the natural contours of the landscape.

• The landscape of the site is proposed to run up to the top of a low wall at the front of the dwelling, helping to conceal the garden and terraced area.

• The new dwelling is proposed to sit in a subterranean form following the gradients of the site so that it will not have an adverse impact on views of the parkland or on views from the parkland back towards Slackhall.

• The main element of the building is single storey and set into the hillside with a green roof to blend into the surrounding landscape. Narrow rooflights will provide light to the rear of the house.

• The plan of the dwelling has been designed in an angle to work most effectively with the contours and to allow a paved terrace to the front of the house. The habitable rooms all face down the hillside connected by rear circulation spaces. Additional ancillary space and non-habitable rooms are to the rear of the dwelling set into the hillside.

• To avoid the need for an access driveway around the building, the entrance to the dwelling is via a small building at upper level with staircase and platform lift. This is the only element of the new dwelling that will be visible from the main entrance.

• A garden store set within the hillside provides integral storage to prevent future need for sheds or additional storage buildings. The position of the garden terrace aims to maximise privacy and shield users from view enhancing the concept of a hidden building.

• The small scale and simple design of the entrance element sits alongside the existing buildings as a contemporary interpretation which emphasizes the historic nature of the existing buildings rather than mimics them, whilst respecting their scale and massing.

• Proposed materials for the subterranean element to the new dwelling include stone walls to complement those already on site, glazed windows and doors to maximise views out, timber fins to add visual interest to the façades and provide an element of privacy to the rooms which face onto the garden and a green roof to tie into the rest of the site. The timber fins and stone wall break up and reduce the amount of glazing whilst still enabling views from each habitable room.

• The pitched faceted roof of the entrance building reinterprets the traditional pitched roofs of the historic buildings in a contemporary form.

• Proposed materials for the entrance element to the new dwelling include drystone walls to tie into the existing walls on site and wrap the base of the building. For the faceted roof and upper section of walls black standing seam zinc has been proposed as a subtle and complementary material. Timber fins will be used at the front to provide privacy to the entrance and visually link with the timber fins to the facade of the subterranean element.

• The position and orientation of the new dwelling ensures there would be no amenity impact with the historic buildings at the southern end of the site.

• There boundary treatment on the edge of the garden to the new dwelling would screen the visibility of the house within the landscape and clearly define the extent of the curtilage to the house.


27

• The landscape masterplan outlines proposals for the wider southern part of the site, including the area around the former ticket office, the access to Ford Hall and parking for the new dwelling.

• The house is served by a lift which makes the scheme accessible. All deliveries would be taken into through the main entrance.

• Sufficient parking would be provided on site and all vehicles would be able to turn around and leave the site in a forward gear.

• Light pollution from the site would be negligible, with the garden and frontage of the house largely screened by the landscaping.

• Regard has been had to the PDNPA’s SPDs on Design and Alterations and Extensions in preparing the proposals.

6.44 In summary, it is therefore clear that the proposals apply with national and local level policy in respect of design and would create a highly sustainable, well designed new contemporary dwelling with minimal landscape impact.


6.45 As outlined at Chapter 3 of this Statement the proposed alterations to the existing buildings within this application are relatively minimal. The majority of works relate to the replacement of existing windows and doors, with some enhancement works to existing openings to better reflect the character of the buildings.

6.46 A landscape scheme for the spaces around the buildings has also been prepared and is submitted as part of the application. This provides further detail on how the spaces will be finished and used as part of the proposed residential use of the buildings.

6.47 In summary, having regard to the policy objectives:

• The proposals do not require any additional built form on site, but new window and doors will be fitted which better reflect the character of the buildings.

• The proposals ensure, through the use of obscured glazing, that there would be no conflict or issue of overlooking between the Chestnut Farmhouse and the residential use of the shippon.

• The proposals would not result in any impact to the adjacent Tollbar Cottage, particularly when consideration is given to the existing use of the Shippon. The removal of the use of the site as a wildlife park would have a positive benefit for the neighbouring properties in terms of noise and disturbance.

• The window in the gable end of the shippon is at a high level and the angle of this directs views upwards rather than downwards towards the adjacent dwelling.

• A landscape masterplan has been prepared for the site which seeks to enhance the setting of the site and details how the spaces around each building will be designed and utilized.

• Accessibility to the buildings is limited by the existing constraints and levels across the site.


28

• Sufficient car parking is provided within the site for each property.

• Regard has been had to the PDNPA’s SPDs on Design and Alterations and Extensions in preparing the proposals.

6.48 In summary it is considered that the proposals comprise a number of sensitive alterations to the existing buildings which will better respect their historic character, improve the landscape setting and ensure there is no amenity issue.

Heritage

6.49 As noted in Chapter 2 of this Statement the application sites are partially located within the Slack Hall and Ford Hall Conservation Areas. The application site for the Historic Buildings application includes a number of listed or curtilage listed buildings, and the New Dwelling Application has the potential to affect the setting of the adjacent listed buildings.

6.50 The potential heritage impacts associated with the proposals have therefore been a key consideration from the outset, and Kathryn Sather and Associates were appointed at an early stage to advise on this matter.

6.51 The NPPF establishes national level guidance on the conservation and preservation of the historic environment. The relevant paragraphs are 189 to 199 of the NPPF, which set out the policies which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. Further guidance is set out within the PPG.

6.52 Paragraph 189 requires planning applications to include a description of the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting.

6.53 Paragraph 192 states that:

“In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

• the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

• the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

• the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.”

6.54 The NPPF at Paragraphs 193, 194 and 196 requires that in determining the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation; any harm to, or loss of, significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification and where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

6.55 Core Strategy Policy L3 ‘Cultural heritage assets of archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic significance’ states that:


29

A. “Development must conserve and where appropriate enhance or reveal the significance of archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic assets and their settings, including statutory designations and other heritage assets of international, national, regional or local importance or special interest;

B. Other than in exceptional circumstances development will not be permitted where it is likely to cause harm to the significance of any cultural heritage asset of archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic significance or its setting, including statutory designations or other heritage assets of international, national, regional or local importance or special interest;

C. Proposals for development will be expected to meet the objectives of any strategy, wholly or partly covering the National Park, that has, as an objective, the conservation and where possible the enhancement of cultural heritage assets. This includes, but is not exclusive to, the Cultural Heritage Strategy for the Peak District National Park and any successor strategy.”

6.56 DMP Policy DMC5 ‘Assessing the impact of development on designated and non-designated heritage assets and their settings’ outlines further guidance for applications affecting a heritage asset, including its setting.

6.57 DMP Policy DMC7 ‘Listed Buildings’ outlines further guidance for proposals which affecting a Listed Building and/or its setting and the level of detail which should be included within any application proposal.

6.58 DMP Policy DMC8 ‘Conservation Areas’ states that “Applications for development in a Conservation Area, or for development that affects its setting or important views into, out of, across or through the area, should assess and clearly demonstrate how the character or appearance and significance of the Conservation Area will be preserved or enhanced”. The policy then provides further detail of considerations that should be considered and assessed.

6.59 Further guidance on the Conservation Area is provided within the ‘The Slackhall and Ford Conservation Area Appraisal’.

6.60 Both applications are supported by a Heritage Statement prepared by Kathryn Sather & Associates (KSA) and include a full assessment of the significance of the heritage assets and an assessment of the proposals having regard to the national and local level policy considerations.

The New Dwelling Scheme

6.61 The Heritage Statement concludes that:

• The removal of the ticket office/ café building will have a beneficial impact upon the setting of the farmhouse and tombstones by reinstating the historic visual connection and reconnecting the historic drive through the parkland of Ford Hall.

• The siting of the new dwelling has been chosen in an area away from the historic farmstead where the natural landscape has been altered by the construction of the car parking areas.

• The new dwelling will allow the reintroduction of views through to the parkland currently blocked by trees planted to delineate the car parking levels.


30

• The new dwelling has been designed to be inconspicuous to significant views of the historic structures and subservient to the landscape and to allow visual permeability. The grass covered roof will allow the new dwelling to visually merge with the hillside in the wide majority of views of the hillside.

• The proposed development will change the general character and land use of the proposal site to a residential use. There will be a beneficial change to the views and spaces as the large public parking areas will be removed and the new dwelling will allow views of the parkland which are currently blocked.

• The site is no longer a working farm or a wildlife centre. The development will form a permanent addition to the site. The proposals aim to ensure a viable future for the site and provide significant enhancements to the site, removing the areas of parking, reintroducing the natural fall of the landscape, and ensuring a better visual connection to the parkland.

• The proposed demolition of the ticket office and café building and construction of one new dwelling within the hillside will not adversely affect the setting or architectural quality of the Conservation Area. The scale and massing of the new dwelling has been designed to sit within the landscape, allowing views over the roofs to the historic parkland. As there are some trees within the area, views of the new dwelling from the parkland should be partly screened by vegetation and the house should not appear overly apparent.

• There are no identified views which include the site of the dwelling in the Slackhall and Ford Conservation Area Adopted Appraisal. The proposals will cause no harm to the significant views into or within the Conservation Area.

• The historic special interest of the Slackhall and Ford Hall Conservation Area is based upon the longevity of the agricultural buildings such as the 18th Century Slackhall Farmhouse and connection to the Ford Hall estate with its good quality buildings. The proposed works will have a slight beneficial impact on the historic special interest of the Conservation Area by reintroducing the visual connection from the Conservation Area through to the parkland of the Ford Hall estate and by removing the café building which currently blocks the connection through to the access drive through the parkland.

• Overall, the proposed works will have a slight beneficial impact on the Conservation Area.


6.62 The Heritage Statement concludes that:

• The proposed alterations to Chestnut Farm will not affect the setting or architectural quality of the Conservation Area. The shippon has been previously converted and proposals will not have any impact on the Conservation Area. The proposed alterations to the farmhouse are predominantly internal. However, the replacement of the unapproved external doors and rooflight will be beneficial to the appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposals will cause no harm to the significant views into or within the Conservation Area.

• The historic special interest of the Slackhall and Ford Hall Conservation Area is based upon the longevity of the agricultural buildings such as the 18thC Slackhall Farmhouse and


31

connection to the Ford Hall estate with its good quality buildings. The proposed works will have a slight beneficial impact on the historic special interest of the Conservation Area by reintroducing the visual connection from the Conservation Area through to the parkland of the Ford Hall estate. Overall, the proposed works will have a slight beneficial impact on the Conservation Area.

• Chestnut Farmhouse is listed as Grade II; it is therefore of national significance and, according to the ICOMOS system, assessed as a heritage asset of medium value. The proposed works to the farmhouse have been designed to rectify unapproved alterations, repair the structure, replace the inappropriate internal alterations to the interior and to upgrade the alterations carried out in the 1970s, with a new kitchen and bathrooms.

• When individually assessed in line with the ICOMOS criteria, the proposed works to the farmhouse constitute a negligible or minor magnitude of change to the building. Negligible and minor changes to a heritage asset of medium significance will result in a significance of impact of neutral or slight impact. Slight impact can be either beneficial or negative. As the proposed works, such as addressing the need for repairs, replacing inappropriate features and bringing the building back into use, will have a small beneficial impact upon the building, the proposed works are assessed as having a neutral or slight beneficial impact. Overall, the proposed work will have a slight beneficial impact on the farmhouse.

• The proposed works involve conversion, repair and alterations to the existing three buildings on the site and will cause no changes to the location and siting. The proposals will not physically or visually isolate the Toll Bar Cottage and will not have any impact on key views of the Toll Bar Cottage.

• The proposed works to have been designed to maintain the former agricultural character of the shippon and annex and ensure that the final development is still clearly legible as part of an historic farmstead. Existing openings are retained and re-used. The proposals will not compete with the listed structures, and the replacement windows and doors are of appropriate materials and design.

6.63 In summary it is considered that the proposals within both applications will not result in any harm to the significance of any of the heritage assets identified within and adjacent to the application sites. The proposals will also have a slight beneficial impact on the Conservation Area.

Landscape & Visual Impact

6.64 The Sandford Principle applies to National Parks and states that “Where irreconcilable conflicts exist between conservation and public enjoyment, then conservation interest should take priority"

6.65 This was enshrined in law in the 1995 Environment Act, "If it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, [the National Park Authority] shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area".

6.66 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Paragraph


32

172 outlines that “Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks… which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.”

6.67 These objectives run through Core Strategy and Development Management Policies including Policy GSP1 ‘Securing national park purposes and sustainable development’, GSP2 ‘Enhancing the National Park’, Policy GSP3 ‘Development Management Principles’, Policy L1 ‘Landscape character and value characteristics’, and DMP Policy DMC1 ‘Conservation and enhancement of nationally significant landscapes’.

6.68 Within the ‘The Peak District Landscape Strategy and Action Plan’, which further describes the NCAs within its boundaries as Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) and then subdivides these into Landscape Character Types (LCTs). The site is located within the ‘Valley Pastures with Industry’ LCT, within the broader Dark Peak Western Fringe LCA.

6.69 Given that the proposals would remove the lawful use from the site as a wildlife park, and result in a significant range of enhancements it is considered that the proposals accord with the broad principles and objectives of these policies.

6.70 The application scheme for the existing historic buildings would not have any adverse impact on the landscape. The areas of hardstanding around the site would be reduced and the intensity of the use of the site significantly decreased. There are no significant external alterations which would impact on the landscape character of the area.

6.71 The application for the new dwelling is supported by a Landscape and Visual Appraisal, which has been prepared by Weddle Landscape Design Ltd.

6.72 This concludes that:

• The character of the site is negatively influenced by a number of detracting elements including the man-made topography of the levelled car parks, the former ticket office and café and to a lesser extent the deer fencing and gates.

• The Zone of Theoretical Visibility and Principal Viewpoints 1 to 5 demonstrate that due to the established site boundary vegetation, steep sided valley landform and wider woodlands and parkland trees, views towards the site are limited to either glimpsed views immediately east of the site; elevated mid-range cross-valley filtered views to the north and; elevated mid-range down-valley filtered views to the north east.

6.73 Regarding landscape features, the proposed development would have a long-term moderate beneficial effect on the most significant landscape features on site including the grassland/parkland, land use and site overall and a neutral to minor beneficial effect on the woodland and trees, hedgerows, topography.

6.74 Regarding published landscape character information, the proposed development would not affect the key characteristics of both NCA 51: Dark Peak and the Valley Pastures with Industry LCT. At the local scale the proposed development will have a negligible beneficial effect at year 1 and 15 as the landscape framework will respond positively to the aims of the LCT.

6.75 Regarding visual effects, due to the existing woodland and topography views are filtered and glimpsed from short sections of PRoW at a mid-distance to the north and north east and a


33

near-distance glimpsed view from Sheffield Road to the east. Views from the south east, south and west are curtailed by the screening effect of steep topography, woodland and tree cover.

6.76 The removal of the former ticket office/café and regrading of the levelled car parks as meadow grassland and the proposed new dwelling will result in a year 1 effect of negligible beneficial to moderate beneficial significance. Establishment of the proposed tree planting would result in further beneficial effect on the near distance view at year 15.

6.77 The proposed development responds positively to landscape related policy at National and Local levels. The proposal would not adversely impact any significant landscape or historical features, landscape or ecologically designated sites, valued landscape, conservation areas, landscape character or visual character and would therefore be in accordance with related planning policy.

6.78 It is therefore considered that in accordance with the relevant polices a detailed assessment of the proposals has been undertaken and it is concluded that these would not result in any harm on the landscape. The proposals therefore comply with the relevant adopted policies at National and Local level.

Flood Risk

New Dwelling Scheme

6.79 The application site is located within Flood Zone 1, however as the New Dwelling Scheme has a site area in excess of 1 hectare this application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment.

6.80 The NPPF states at Paragraph 163 that “When determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Where appropriate, applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment.”

6.81 Core Strategy Policy CC5 ‘Flood risk and water conservation’ outlines a number of criteria including a requirement that “Development which increases roof and hard surface area must include adequate measures such as Sustainable Drainage Systems to deal with the run-off of surface water. Such measures must not increase the risk of a local water course flooding”.

6.82 The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment prepared by EWE Associates. This recommends that a single crate soakaway is provided to the rear of the building, which would be accommodated adjacent to the proposed dwelling.

6.83 The Flood Risk Assessment concludes that “there is a very low risk of fluvial flooding to the proposed development from the local watercourse as the site is located outside the 1 in 1,000 year flood envelope. It is also unlikely that the proposed development will have any adverse impact on the surface water drainage in the area”.


6.84 The application site is located in Flood Zone 1 and the site area for this application falls below 1ha. Therefore, there is no requirement for a Flood Risk Assessment to be undertaken.

6.85 The proposals do not include any new buildings or additional areas of hard standing, and there is an overall reduction in the area of parking which will reduce any issue of surface water runoff from the site.


34

Sustainability

6.86 Chapter 14 of the NPPF addresses “Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change” and Paragraph 148 summarises that:

“The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure”.

6.87 Core Strategy Policy “CC1: Climate change mitigation and adaptation” outlines a requirement for all new development to build in resilience to and mitigate the causes of climate change. As such all development must meet a number of criteria as follows:

a. Make the most efficient and sustainable use of land, buildings and natural resources.

b. Take account of the energy hierarchy by:

i. reducing the need for energy;

ii. using energy more efficiently;

iii. supplying energy efficiently; and

iv. using low carbon and renewable energy.

c. Be directed away from flood risk areas, and seek to reduce overall risk from flooding within the National Park and areas outside it, upstream and downstream.

d. Achieve the highest possible standards of carbon reductions.

e. Achieve the highest possible standards of water efficiency.

6.88 Each application is supported by a Sustainability Statement which outlines how these criteria will be achieved within each application proposal.

Highways

6.89 The application proposals and the change of use of the site from the current use as a wildlife park will significantly decrease the number of traffic movements to and from the site. As noted in Chapter 4 of this Report the visitor numbers to the centre were circa 46,800 per year, with around 18,000 trips.

6.90 The proposals are for the retention of the farmhouse as a 2 bedroom cottage with a study, use of the Annex as a one bedroom ancillary accommodation or holiday accommodation unit, the Shippon as a 3 bedroom dwelling and the new build 4 bedroom residential dwelling.

6.91 Parking is provided in three locations for each property, with 4 spaces for the Farmhouse and Annex, 2 spaces for the Shippon and 3 spaces for the New Dwelling. Sufficient space is also included on site for vehicles to turn around and for deliveries to the site. This meets the standards at Appendix 9 of the DMP.


35

6.92 The NPPF states at Paragraph 109 that “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe”.

6.93 Neighbourhood Plan Policy TR1 ‘Information Required to Support Planning Applications’ requires that “When submitting development proposals for new housing, employment, retail, community or leisure use, or for any other development that would raise sustainable transport issues, applicants are required to:

• Demonstrate safe walking and cycle routes in the immediate area of the site, with consideration of access to services and facilities, and to the countryside;

• Demonstrate how the proposals link with public transport;

• Demonstrate the impacts of the traffic arising from the development;

• Address any identified impacts.

Planning applications for developments that will generate significant amounts of movement must be accompanied by a Travel Plan that sets out how sustainable movement will be encouraged. The Travel Plan and the method of monitoring its effectiveness will be agreed with Derbyshire County Council.”

6.94 Given the existing lawful use of the site and that the proposed vehicle movements associated with the new proposals would be significantly lower than the historic trips associated with the site it is considered that there is not impact on highway safety as a result of the proposals. Furthermore, there is no requirement to submit a Travel Plan in respect of the proposals.

6.95 The site does not have any public transport links within close proximity, but it is accessible by cycle and has good connections to a network of public footpaths within the local area.

Ecology

6.96 Each application is supported by an Ecological Impact Assessment prepared by Peak Ecology.

6.97 Paragraph 174 and 175 of the NPPF relate to biodiversity, and seek to promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.

6.98 This is reflected within DMP Policy DMC11 ‘Safeguarding, recording and enhancing nature conservation interests’ and DMC12 ‘Sites, features or species of wildlife, geological or geomorphological importance’ as well as within Neighbourhood Plan Policy C2 ‘Biodiversity’.

New Dwelling Scheme

6.99 The Ecological Impact Assessment concludes that the proposals will have a number of beneficial impacts on the site:

• The decrease in human activity, and the associated reduction of traffic and noise disturbance as a result of the change of use from a tourist attraction to a residential dwelling is likely to benefit the site and the wildlife that it supports, on a local scale.

• Improvements and enhancements including restoration of the car parks to previous or more natural gradients with meadow seeding, the creation of hedgerows and a


36

level of tree planting is also proposed for the site. These compensations/enhancement measures are considered likely to increase biodiversity significantly, particularly around the car park area which is currently dominated by hardstanding. It is understood that the hardstanding is to be removed and the area seeded with a meadow mix.

• If cut on a suitable rotation, such as two cuts per year outside of the flowering season, the habitat will have the potential to provide a range of ecological opportunities including foraging resources for invertebrates, birds and mammals (including bats) and ground nesting opportunities for birds. Further foraging, nesting and shelter opportunities will be provided by the proposed native shrub, hedgerow and tree planting.

• Given the location/distance of the designated sites, as well as the proposals on site, the individual habitats present are considered unlikely to be impacted by the development proposals. The reduction in local traffic, as a result of the change of use of the site from a tourist attraction (former Chestnut Centre) to a residential dwelling is likely to improve air quality on a local scale.

6.100 The Ticket Office is a confirmed bat roost, with a total of four bat roosts identified as follows;

• Brown long-eared day roost located between the fascia board and wall top of the southern elevation used by a single bat (bat witnessed during the PBRA);

• Brown long-eared day roost located internally at the ridge bean in the loft space, considered to be utilised by a single bat;

• Brown long-eared day roost located within the hole feature of the porch considered to be utilised by a single bat; and

• Common pipistrelle day roost located within the loft space, on the internal southern gable end wall considered to be utilised by a single bat.

6.101 The proposals are likely to include the demolition of the entire building, and therefore would result in the permanent loss (destruction) of the existing bat roosts, and potentially injuring and/or killing roosting bats if works are not undertaken in a sensitive manner. Consequently, an EPS licence will be required from Natural England before works impacting the roosts can commence and would be applied for once any relevant permissions.

6.102 Mitigation and compensations measures would be identified that are proportionate and appropriate for the level of impact, impacted species and roost types present. The measures are to be confirmed, but given that the new build is to be an eco-home with a green roof, and therefore void of a loft space or any of the usual features associated with roosting bats, for example bargeboards, ridge tiles etcetera, it is recommended that suitable bat boxes are installed on retained trees close by, or if possible mounted on external walls of the new building.

6.103 Green roofs are known to provide biodiversity gain, and if seeded with an appropriate seed mix, can benefit a range of species including invertebrates, bats and birds by increasing foraging opportunities (English Nature, 2003).


37

6.104 The Ticket Office was confirmed as supporting four separate day roosts of single BLE and pipistrelle bats. Therefore, it is recommended that at least five bat boxes of a range of crevice box designs are used (https://www.greenwoodsecohabitats.co.uk/shop).

6.105 In addition prior to the demolition of the building, two small two-crevice bat boxes must be mounted on suitable trees nearby and left in situ for a minimum of 5-years.

6.106 It is considered that these measures would provide net gains for biodiversity across the site in accordance with the NPPF.

Historic Buildings Scheme

6.107 The Ecological Impact Assessment concludes with regards to bats, the three buildings on site had potential for roosting bats (Building A – low, Building B – moderate and Building C – moderate) but no evidence of bats was noted during the daytime inspection or further bat surveys.

6.108 Two trees (TNs 1 & 2) on site had low and high bat roosting potential but are likely to be retained and pruned. Habitats were suitable for foraging and commuting with a moderate potential, the majority of which will be retained. However, should it become necessary to remove the trees, further bat surveys will be required.

6.109 No other species of note were recorded on the application site but the Assessment outlined monitoring for these during the construction period.

6.110 Further enhancement within the site, including measures included within the landscaping scheme would provide a net benefit on the site through new planting and through the addition of bird and bat boxes across the site.

Trees

6.111 Both applications are supported by a Tree Survey, Constraints Plan, Protection Plan and Work Schedule prepared by Weddle Landscape Design Ltd.

6.112 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment through a number of measures including recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, including of trees and woodland;

6.113 DMP Policy DMC13 ‘Protecting trees, woodland or other landscape features put at risk by development’ outlines a number of criteria.

6.114 Part A requires that planning applications should provide sufficient information to enable their impact on trees, woodlands and other landscape features to be properly considered in accordance with ‘BS 5837: 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations’ or equivalent. As noted above both applications are supported by a Treey Survey.

6.115 In accordance with the objectives of Part B, no trees or hedgerows are proposed to be lost which positively contribute, either as individual specimens or as part of a wider group, to the visual amenity or biodiversity of the location. The trees proposed to be removed are low quality trees which have relatively recently been planted on site, blocking views across the site towards Ford Hall.


38

6.116 As required by Part C, the application proposals retain all trees of merit and measures are included within the landscaping scheme to ensure that these are not impact upon by the parking or other works proposed.

6.117 Both application submissions also outline what measures would be taken during the course of construction to protect the existing trees on site, as outlined by Part D. The proposals would therefore accord with the objectives of Policy DMC13.


39

7. CONCLUSIONS 7.1 In summary, this Planning Statement has been prepared in support of two proposals on the

site of the former Chestnut Centre wildlife park. Applications are being made for:

• planning permission and listed building consent for works to the existing farmhouse, shippon and annex. This will see the existing farmhouse refurbished and the annex converted to holiday accommodation or ancillary accommodation to the farmhouse and the conversion of the shippon to an open market residential unit.

• planning permission to the land covered by the former ticket office, animal enclosures and overspill car park. This application would see the removal of the former ticket office and the reinstatement of the historic access route through the site for Ford Hall. The majority of the animal enclosures alongside the river would be removed. The existing overspill car park would be regraded and a new subterranean dwelling positioned within this part of the site.

7.2 The applications have been the subject of a number of rounds of pre application discussions with the Peak District National Park Authority.

7.3 It is clear from the assessment that the principle of the proposed works is acceptable. The schemes both on their own, and when considered cumulatively, also provide a range of enhancements to the site.

7.4 Firstly the proposals remove the potential to use the site as a wildlife park, by removing the car park, ticket office, toilets and other facilities as well as the animal enclosures themselves. This significantly reduces the number of vehicular trips to and from the site, associated with the annual visitor numbers of around 46,800 people, which has a positive benefit in terms of noise and air pollution within the local area.

7.5 The removal of the ticket office removes a non traditional building from and the site, and combined with the removal of a limited number of trees from the site opens views up across the site towards Ford Hall. The reinstatement of the historic access route to Ford Hall will be reinforced within the landscape.

7.6 The reuse of the existing buildings has significant heritage benefits for the site in providing these with a viable future use and the financial impetus to undertake these alterations. The proposals are concluded to result in no harm to the Listed Buildings, their setting or the Conservation Area.

7.7 The ecological enhancements to the site, including the proposed landscaping scheme, provide significant benefits to both parts of the site.

7.8 The regarding of the existing overspill car park, which has significantly altered the levels across the site, is concluded to be a positive benefit in the landscape. This would be regraded and a new dwelling positioned within the new landscape profile.

7.9 The design of the dwelling, which is essentially buried with only one elevation to the primary living spaces, minimizes the visibility of this building on entering the site. In views from the north, the visibility of the building is screened by a raised element at the edge of the garden to the property. This has been the subject of a Landscape and Visual Appraisal which concludes that there are benefits in removing the car parking area and ticket


40

office and that the new dwelling would have very minimal visibility and impact within the landscape.

7.10 In summary it is considered that the proposals deliver a range of enhancements to the site and the wider area, and all key considerations associated with the proposals have been assessed and concluded to be acceptable and in accordance with local and national planning policies and guidance, and therefore the applications should be approved.

Chestnut Centre, Slackhall

Documents

Transcript of Chestnut Centre, Slackhall