Planning appeal decision
Land at Thornbridge Hall, Baslow Road, Ashford-in-the-Water, DE45 1NZ
- Authority
- Peak District
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- leisure-sport · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Boffin D
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area taking into account: the special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of nearby listed buildings and the contribution that setting makes to their significance; the special interest and significance of the Registered Park and Garden and the special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Thornbridge Conservation Area and its significance; its effect on trees; conserving and enhancing the natural, landscape and scenic beauty of the Peak District National Park; and potential features of archaeological interest
What decided it
The Inspector found that the wide-ranging package of public benefits, in particular the heritage repair and management secured through the unilateral undertaking and Conservation Management Plan and the substantial increase in public access to the heritage assets, outweighed the less than substantial harm caused to the significance of the designated and non-designated heritage assets and the PDNP landscape.
The less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed buildings, RPG, TCA and non-designated archaeological assets, and the associated harm to the natural, landscape and scenic beauty of the PDNP, was outweighed—on a fine balance—by the very significant package of heritage, social and economic public benefits flowing from the development.
Framework references: 56, 57, 199, 202, 203, 205
Plan policies cited: Policy GSP1, Policy GSP2, Policy GSP3, Policy L1, Policy L2, Policy L3, Policy RT1, Policy E2, Policy DMC1, Policy DMC3, Policy DMC5, Policy DMC7, Policy DMC8, Policy DMC9, Policy DMC11, Policy DMC13, Policy DME7
Judgments cited: Hampshire CC & the Open Spaces Society & Others v SSEFRA & Blackbushe Airport Ltd [2020] EWHC 959 (Admin), [2021] EWCA 398, [2020] JPL 1359; Methuen-Campbell v Walters [1979] 2 QB 525; Dyer v Dorset County Council [1989] 1 QB 346; Attorney-General ex rel Sutcliffe v Calderdale BC (1983) 46 P&CR 399; Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v SSETR [2001] QB 59; Challenge Fencing Ltd v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 553 (Admin); Watson-Smyth v Secretary of State for the Environment (1992) 64 P&CR 156; Lowe v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 537 (Admin); Buck d. Whalley v Nurton (1797) 1B & P 53
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®