The committee approved a retrospective application for a summerhouse and engineering works at Hurstfield House, Hague Bar, New Mills, an application to remove a condition from permission HPK/2022/0573 for Co-op Fields, Rear of Mount Pleasant, Spring Bank, New Mills, and a listed building consent application for the removal of a stud wall from Buxton Town Hall, Market Place, Buxton. The committee also agreed to delegate the decision on an application for a new stand for Buxton Football Club, Silverlands, Buxton to the Head of Planning, provided that Network Rail did not object. The committee considered an application for a battery storage facility on land adjacent to Marsh Lane, New Mills, but deferred making a decision.

HPK/2023/0193 - Land adjacent to Marsh Lane, New Mills

The application for the construction of a battery storage facility¹ on land adjacent to Marsh Lane, New Mills was discussed at length. The site, which lies within the Green Belt² is adjacent to the Manchester to Sheffield railway line and close to the Peak District National Park.

The committee received a report from planning officers, who recommended that the application be approved. Officers accepted that the proposal amounted to inappropriate development in the Green Belt but considered that the harm to the Green Belt was outweighed by the benefits associated with increased renewable energy production. The officers' view was that the proposals would provide infrastructure to support and increase the capacity for the supply of low carbon energy and would thereby help the UK Government to meet its legally binding target of fully decarbonising the National Grid by 2035. They also noted that the site had been chosen after a comprehensive site selection process, which had concluded that this site was the only viable option in the locality.

The officers also considered the landscape and visual impacts of the proposals, concluding that while there would be some harm, the harm would be limited, owing to the existing strong boundary treatment and the extensive landscaping proposals. In particular, they noted that:

Any effects on landscape character would be confined to the site itself and the surrounding local area. Visual effects [would be] reduced by the proposed mitigation planting and [there would be] no adverse effects on [the] PDNP.

In terms of residential amenity, they concluded that while there had been a number of objections from local residents, that these could be overcome by the imposition of suitable planning conditions.

The committee also heard representations from members of the public, many of whom objected to the proposal. They argued that:

• The proposal would harm the openness of the Green Belt.
• There were more suitable sites elsewhere, including brownfield sites.
• The proposals would have a detrimental impact on the local landscape and the setting of the Peak District National Park.
• The development would lead to an increase in traffic and congestion.
• Battery Storage Units were a fire hazard and could endanger public health and safety.

The committee also heard from the applicant's agent, Mr Stevenson of RPS Consulting UK & Ireland, who argued that:

• The application should be approved, as it would make a significant contribution to the UK's renewable energy targets.
• The proposal had been designed to minimise its impact on the Green Belt and the surrounding area.
• The application was supported by a detailed and comprehensive landscaping scheme.

The committee also heard from Mr Moss, a local resident, who objected to the proposals on the grounds that:

• Marsh Lane was unsuitable for HGVs.
• The electricity to be stored at the site would be for use outside of the local area, while the disbenefits of the proposal would be felt by local people.
• Approving such a large development in the Green Belt would be unfair when smaller household extensions were refused.

The committee was minded to refuse the application, on the grounds that the harm to the Green Belt was not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. However, they also expressed a desire to see the application approved, given the potential benefits associated with increased renewable energy production.

They therefore deferred making a decision on the application until the next meeting to allow time to consider whether further information was required from the applicant and to allow them to consider the matter further.

HPK/2024/0401 - Land off Cottage Lane, Gamesley

The application for the construction of 51 houses³ and flats for social rent on land off Cottage Lane, Gamesley was discussed at length. The site is a greenfield site, that lies within the Goyt Valley and is adjacent to the Longdendale Trail. The site is also subject to Tree Preservation Order (TPO) no. 306 Trees of all species on land located between 14-84 Cottage Lane (west) and disused rail line (east).

The committee received a report from officers recommending that the application be refused. They noted that the proposals would result in the loss of a substantial area of woodland and would therefore have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. They also noted that the development would have a detrimental impact on the local ecology, would fail to provide for an appropriate range of housing types and sizes, and would not provide an appropriate bridleway connection to the Trans Pennine Trail.

They did note that the applicant was offering 100% affordable housing on the site, exceeding the policy requirement of 30%, and that the proposal would make a positive contribution to housing supply, but concluded that these benefits did not outweigh the harm identified.

The committee also heard representations from members of the public, all of whom objected to the proposal. They argued that:

• The proposal would lead to the loss of valuable trees and woodland.
• The development would have a detrimental impact on local wildlife, including hedgehogs, deer, owls and bats.
• The proposal would lead to an increase in traffic and congestion, and that the local road network would not be able to cope with the extra traffic.
• The development would result in the loss of open space.
• The development would be out of character with the surrounding area.
• The applicant had not consulted properly with the local community.

The committee also heard from the applicant's agent, who argued that:

• The application should be approved, as it would provide much-needed affordable housing in the area.
• The development would enhance the local area by providing new homes and jobs.
• The applicant had worked hard to design a scheme that was sensitive to the local environment.

The committee, however, voted unanimously to refuse the application.