‘Horrified’ conservationist complains to north Derbyshire council after developer tears down dry stone walling

NE Derbyshire District Council gave conditional planning permission for a couple to demolish a dwelling and outbuildings at Bluster Castle Farm, on Birley Road, Birley, at Cutthorpe, Chesterfield, and replace them with a new two-storey dwelling and a garage with an above farm office and a private drainage system.

But resident David Catton, of Old Hall Farm, on Main Road, Cutthorpe, has written to the council and NE Derbyshire MP Lee Rowley claiming that the removal of characteristic rural dry stone walling around the farm contradicts the local authority’s Brampton Neighbourhood Plan.

Mr Catton said: “I am horrified to note that large stretches of dry stone walling have been removed from the boundary of this property. This extremely regrettable action is completely contrary to the made Brampton Neighbourhood Plan.”

Conservationists believe dry stone walls can be an important habitat for plants and animals including lichens, mosses, ferns and invertebrates and some birds who use them for nesting.

Mr Catton cited a policy in the plan, which is aimed at protecting, conserving and enhancing dry stone walls, and states that a development should not result in the loss of or harm to traditional dry stone walls and that the conservation or enhancement of dry stone walls ‘will be supported’.

He has called upon the council to secure the complete reinstatement of the removed dry stone walls as an example of its support for the Neighbourhood Plan which the district council approved and which received significant support from residents in the Brampton Parish.

Derbyshire County Cllr Angelique Foster, whose ward includes NE Derbyshire, and County Cllr Ron Mihaly, whose ward includes south Brampton, have also received correspondence from Mr Catton calling for their support and advice about who is responsible for enforcing policies in Neighbourhood Plans.

Mr Catton, who led a group developing the Brampton Parish Neighbourhood Plan, stated: “I’m hoping you can help us solve a problem created by the wanton and unnecessary destruction of a long stretch of dry stone wall on the boundary of Bluster Castle.”

He also stated to MP Lee Rowley that he felt the situation was ‘most unfortunate’ because he understood that otherwise the plan to rebuild the house is an ‘excellent example of zero carbon development’.

District Council Planning Enforcement Officer Julian Hawley explained to Mr Catton in correspondence that the relevant demolition that concerns Mr Catton is deemed to be a permitted development and does not require council permission, and any enforcement action would be expected to fail and the council would be liable for costs for ‘unreasonable behaviour’.

Mr Hawley also explained that many acts of development are automatically granted planning permission under a General Permitted Development Order so councils are not burdened by small-scale minor developments and the only exception would have been if the wall had been located in a conservation area.

He added that he has checked all relevant planning legislation to ensure no part of the works might have been ‘controlled’ and he stated that where planning permission has already been granted under a GPDO the Neighbourhood Plan’s policy cannot be taken into account by the council.

Mr Hawley also said that he has, however, referred the matter to Natural England because he understands farm payment subsidies can be affected by removing traditional walls.

Mr Catton acknowledged Mr Hawley’s concerns about the loss of these walls after he referred the situation to Natural England but Mr Catton has stated he is determined to take ‘further activity’ on the matter.

He said: “I have spoken to several neighbours and all are very concerned that the Policy B9 in the Neighbourhood Plan cannot, apparently, be enforced. Our feeling is best summed up as: ‘if not, why not?’

“What is the purpose of ‘making’ a Neighbourhood Plan if its policies cannot be enforced?”

During the planning process, ward councillors raised no observations and no comments were received from Brampton Parish Council, Peak Northern Footpaths Society, Chesterfield Cycle Campaign and the British Horse Society, while Derbyshire County Council’s Highways and Rights of Way authorities and the Ramblers Association raised no objections.

An Environmental Health Officer did raise concerns about possible ground contamination from fuel storage and the use of agrochemicals so they recommended conditional checks be carried out before work was started.

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust also required that the applicant secures a Bat Mitigation Class Licence from Natural England and the trust requested the applicants secure a replacement barn owl nest box .

The council stated the construction of new buildings on Green Belt land is regarded as ‘inappropriate’ unless this involves the replacement of a building for the same use and it is no larger.

It added that proposals for any new development will only be permitted where they would not cause significant harm to the character, quality, distinctiveness or sensitivity of the landscape, or to important features or views, or other qualities such as tranquillity.

A council officer also stated that the design, materials, scale, location, levels and the proposed boundary treatments and landscaping are respectful of the surrounding landscape character.

The officer added that the buildings will be traditional in character and by virtue of their design, materials and scale coupled with their setting and proposed landscaping and boundary treatments the development meets the requirements of three relevant North East Derbyshire Local Plan policies.

Planning Enforcement Officer Mr Hawley said that the owner of the development has stated their intention is to replant the section of lost dry stone walling with a traditional native hedgerow which should help to mitigate any harm.