Hall owner denies ‘party house’ claims from locals

THE owner of Bradley Hall has refuted suggestions among locals that he is planning to turn the historic building into a holiday complex.

Paul Staley spoke ahead of Derbyshire Dales Planning Committee members discussing his application to make a series of alterations to the Grade Ii-listed building to point out that the scheme was purely for the benefit of his family, including his seven children.

Villagers had written more than 30 letters, alongside a petition, objecting to the plans to build a swimming pool, convert an orangery into a kitchen and retain two hot tub shelters at holiday cottages on the site, but Mr Staley spoke out to reassure planning committee members that “Bradley Hall will not become a large holiday let”.

He explained that the hall was a family home and that the swimming pool would not generate any noise, while the use of the hot tubs would be restricted to set times of the day and evening.

The objections, he continued, had been “very upsetting”, as there was “a lot of misinformation” and rumours almost forced his family out of the village.

Villagers had been concerned over reports that the hot tubs connected to two self-catering cottages adjoining the hall were in use as late as 4.30am, and that other disturbances had been reported at Bradley Hall in the past.

They claim the prospect of the scheme, which they describe as a “party house”, was causing “significant distress” to residents.

But Mr Staley said: “To me this shows how misinformation has spread and caused unnecessary alarm. Again, I want to reassure everyone that this development is for our family home, all nine of us.”

Also speaking ahead of the official discussion was a representative of the Parochial Church Council for All Saints Church, which sits opposite the hall.

He told councillors that the two hot tubs had been the main cause of disruption reported in the centre of the village, with loud music and inappropriate behaviour at unsociable hours.

He also claimed Mr Staley appeared to have a history of converting large-scale properties into accommodation for groups of holiday makers.

“This has coloured our judgement as to what is the purpose of this application”, he said.”

During discussion, councillors sought to address their own concerns that the property would not become a “party house”, but they were advised by planning officer Chris Whitmore that because the applicant had expressed an intention to use the house as a family home, committee members had no grounds or reason to look at it in any other way.

The hot tubs on the site, Mr Whitmore said, did not need planning consent to be in place, but the structures built around the hot tubs did require retrospective planning consent.

Any reports of nuisance arising from the use of the hot tubs would be a matter for the Environmental Health department, he added.

However, councillors could not resolve their concerns that the hot tub structures affected the settlement of the listed building, and it was proposed that the decision was deferred to allow Historic England to have its say on the plans.

A separate application covering details relating to the alterations of the listed building was also deferred.