The fourth generation of a family born and bred in the Peak District National Park have been allowed to remain in the area after councillors disregarded a ‘deeply flawed’ planning policy.
Earlier in the year, applicant Sharon Bates wept when speaking to the Peak District National Park Authority Planning Committee of her wish to build a pair of semi-detached houses off Recreation Road, Tideswell, to allow her two sons to move back to the village, which has become unaffordable due to the number of holiday homes.
The matter was deferred to allow an assessment of their eligibility for affordable housing, which they had passed, however when the application came up before the committee again on Friday, October 7, it had been recommended for refusal because one of the properties was eight square metres above the upper size limit dictated by the policy.
Addressing members again, Mrs Bates said: “My two children will hopefully be the fourth generation in our family as per previous family members to have been born and brought up in Tideswell but only moving away due to ever increasing house prices.
“Despite being registered with Home Options it’s impossible for my children to get properties in the village – that’s to either rent or to buy, hence the application we have put in.”
One of the proposed homes was three-bedded to accommodate one son who has a partner and child, and measured 97 square metres (sqm), which is the maximum amount allowed within the policy.
The other two-bedded house, to be built for the second son who does not currently have a family, measured 78sqm – however the policy states it should be a maximum of 70sqm
Mrs Bates continued: “We have proven eligibility, we have altered everything asked by the planning office once and altered back again.
“Despite this, it has still been recommended for refusal just on the eight square metres.
“In my opinion if the adjoining two bedroom is reduced by the said amount then it will become unlivable.”
Members were in agreement that the family should be allowed to build the properties, but clashed over whether the extra eight sqm should be permitted.
Vice-Chairman Councillor Ken Smith commented: “We have to consider the implications of what we are potentially being asked for, which is to approve something that is so far beyond our assessment of need and beyond our flexibility to address people’s wants.”
Councillor Annabelle Harling agreed that the policy had been ‘pushed’ already.
She explained: “The only way that we can control affordability, and it’s not a great tool, is with size.
“And if we keep allowing sizes to creep up saying ‘well it’s only a little bit so it doesn’t make that much difference’ we might as well not have a policy, it’s not benefiting future generations in the park.”
But Councillor Kath Potter said the park needed to be ‘enhanced’ by retaining young people to take over from the older generation.
“This national park must look to the future, and by the future I mean housing our young people, we old codgers aren’t going to be here much longer,” she commented.
Chairman Councillor Patrick Brady said the policy had been intended for guidance, and had ‘caused a great deal of concern and at times anger among the community’.
“The policy is deeply flawed and there is no way at any stage that I will be voting for any recommendation that is based solely upon this policy,” he stated.
The plans were approved by seven of the 12 committee members, subject to conditions.
