Agenda item

Application No. 22/00441/FUL

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a replacement dwellinghouse (resubmission) at Nether Hillside Farm, Biggin, Ashbourne.


The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation showing details of the application and photographs of the site and surroundings.


The Committee visited the site prior to the meeting to allow Members to appreciate the proposal in the context of its surroundings.


In accordance with the procedure for public participation, Mr Tim Allen (Agent) spoke in support of the application. Ms Louise Redfern (Local resident), Mr William Hibbert (Biggin Parish meeting), Ms Geogina Geraghty (Kirk Ireton Parish Council) and Ms Wendy Whitbread (Local resident) spoke against the application.


Consultation responses were set out in section 5 of the report.


Following publication of the agenda:


A representation had been received from Kate Chubb and it is summarised below.


The original Georgian farmhouse ought to be preserved and enhanced, not razed just because VAT is not payable on new builds.


At no 80 of NPPF "Planning policies should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one of 5 exceptions apply".  Not one single exception applies.


The numerous car parking spaces show that carbon and climate change is not being addressed. Far from it. How do we know that all vehicles are carbon free and all visitors' cars too?  Unless applications can demonstrate biodiversity net gain, they ought to be refused.


Huge swathes of fenestration due south, (like a light house or oil rig) will send wildlife, flora and fauna as far away as it can get.  The light pollution will therefore quietly decimate a large area. 


The justification to demolish the original Georgian farmhouse is absurd. Most Georgian structures do not comply with modern building regs either!    Preservation of the original Georgian Farmhouse (which is fine) along with the original Georgian fireplace in uniquely distinctive Derbyshire stone ought to be left intact.  (NPPF chapter 16)


Another absurdity:  The report says the original Georgian farmhouse can be obliterated because it is “outside any framework boundary" as if again, it was the Georgians who were mistaken. The official address at Nether Hillside Farm is very much Biggin-based.  Planners are completely wrong to arbitrarily conclude (like Colonial field Marshalls dividing up countries) who does or does not belong to which community.  It is not their decision or call. 


The application architects hope that the area is insensitive to change, obviously, but if we look at Kirk Ireton's Neighbourhood Plan we see a chapter called "Policy P2 Protecting Views" and in the examiner's report, (pp13) he says, "it is evident that the situation of Kirk Ireton on high ground means that long-distance views assume a particular significance".  This would include Nether Hillside Farm, "on high ground" and a mere 3 fields away from Kirk Ireton. 


The new building is not on the original footprint but situated to cause as much light pollution as possible. 


Officer Response:


The original farmhouse is later 18th Century and in the early 1980s the Government initiated a major national re-survey of historic buildings in England and during the re-survey all historic buildings were considered and those worthy of statutory listing were included on the national heritage list for England. For the outcomes of the national re-survey this building was not included on the national list. All other comments have been addressed in the committee report.


An additional condition is required that reads:-


Prior to first occupation or use of the hereby approved dwellings a scheme of measures to mitigate the effects of and adapt to climate change at the site and associated timetable shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.


During debate, it was moved by Councillor Peter O’Brien and seconded by Councillor Sue Burfoot that planning permission be refused as the new development did not reflect the character of the local area and was not considered to make a positive design contribution.


This was then put to the vote as follows:




4 For

6 Against

0 Abstention


The Chairman declared the motion FALLEN.


Members raised concerns regarding the amount of glazing and reflection.


Councillor Stuart Lees moved the Officer recommendations with an additional condition to use anti-glare glass, this was then seconded by Councillor Mark Wakeman and




1.      That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report with the addition of a further condition as set out below:

That anti-glare glass to be utilised.




3 For

6 Against

1 Abstention


Supporting documents: