Planned holiday home near beauty spot would look ‘out of place’
PLANS for a new holiday let close to Carsington Water are likely to be turned down, after a planning officer suggested it would look “incongruous”.
The building, currently used as a garage at South Barn in Overtown, near Hognaston, sits in a small cluster of buildings a few fields away from the reservoir and it was given permission to become a garage in 1996.
Now the applicant Mrs Phillips Moul wants to turn it into a small holiday cottage by raising its roof and fitting it with a dormer on the rear-facing wall.
In a planning statement, the applicant’s agent JMI Planning, says the holiday cottage would bring social and economic benefits to the area, adding another accommodation option to the popular area, but some locals did not agree.
Written into a report going before councillors ahead of a planning meeting last week, Hognaston Parish Council’s comments point out that the property is accessed through a working farmyard. The lane is narrow with just one passing place, the council adds.
Four separate objections were also sent in from individuals, which were summarised in the report. These outlined the fact that the number of dwellings in the lane to the hamlet of Overtown has increased from four to nine and a further property could add to the traffic level.
A neighbouring farmer raised fears over increasing dog attacks on his livestock, which grazes adjacent to the proposed cottage, and issues over flooding and sewage in the area were highlighted. In other comments, neighbours expressed concerns over the amount of noise a further holiday property could add, and they claim there is enough accommodation surrounding Carsington Water already, including four caravan parks. Derbyshire Dales District Council planning officer Joe Baldwin, the application’s case officer is recommending councillors refuse the plans when they meet on Tuesday in Matlock Town Hall’s council chamber.
He said in his report: “The application relates to a recently (relatively) constructed freestanding garage building which is of permanent and substantial construction.
“It is a simple domestic building that is secondary in form, scale and appearance to the main dwelling (a former barn).
“The building does not make a positive architectural or historic contribution to its surroundings and its conversion and associated extensions and alterations to create a holiday let would result in an incongruous built form and relationship with this principal building on site.
“There are significant concerns, which have also been raised by local residents that the installation of the dormer to the rear would be detrimental to the building’s appearance and relationship with the main dwelling on site.
“There would be no agricultural justification for such an alteration to the building and as a result the proposal appears overly domestic in its appearance which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing building and its surroundings.”
And, recommending the permission be refused, he concluded: “The outbuilding does not make a positive contribution to its surroundings and the degree of extension and alteration proposed to facilitate the use would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the outbuilding and adjacent dwelling.
“The proposal would result in an unsustainable and harmful form of development in the countryside.”
Planning committee members can now decide to follow the recommendation and refuse permission, or to ignore it and grant permission, when they meet at 6pm on Tuesday, January 11.
The building does not make a positive architectural or historic contribution to its surroundings Joe Baldwin