Agenda item

Change of use of garden to siting of four holiday camping pods and formation of car parking area.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for the change of use of a garden to the siting of four holiday camping pods and formation of car parking area at Grove House, Redford Lane, Hamsterley (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Williamson, Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, photographs into the site and site layout plan.

S Lee of South Bedburn Parish Council addressed the Committee to object to the application.  The Forestry Commission, while encouraging leisure activities within Hamsterley Forest, had also created pockets of tranquillity within the Forest for those who did not wish to participate in forest activities/.  Grove House was one such area of tranquillity.  The site of the proposed development was approximately half way in to the Forest Drive, which was considered to be one of England’s top woodland drives.  This application was for a commercial business and it was the opinion of the Parish Council that this was not the right place to site four camping pods, which would be an intrusion into the amenity of the area.

Camping facilities should be considered as part of an overall development plan for Hamsterley Forest.  It was feared that the camping pods proposed could produce a negative impact for the community.

Councillor H Smith, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the proposal.

Hamsterley Forest was considered to be a jewel within County Durham both for its outdoor activities and landscape.  While visitors to the Forest and job creation should be encouraged, there was a need for the right development to be in the right places.

While NPPF Part 1 supported the building of a strong, competitive economy, NPPF Part 11 stated that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.  Grove House was an historic property and the development of four camping pods would neither enhance nor protect the environment.  The proposed development would involve the removal of trees and hedges and would not be an improvement to biodiversity.

The proposed development was contrary to the following Policies of the saved Teesdale District Local Plan:

·         GD1 – all new development should contribute to the quality and built environment of the surrounding area.

·         ENV1 – proposals to be acceptable, needed to show that they did not unreasonably harm the landscape and wildlife resources of the area.  The proposal would involve the removal of three trees as well as the grubbing up of hedges which could cause damage to the roots of other trees in the area.  There was no mention of damage to wildlife habitat. 

·         TR3 – supported the principle of development of chalet sites in situations where it did not detract from the character of the area.  This development would detract from the area and the screening was not adequate.

The infrastructure in the area was not sufficient to support the proposed four camping pods.  Houses at the Grove were served by a spring which had dried up in the past.  Additionally, the electricity supply which was proposed to be used was a cable which trailed through tree canopies and therefore underground cables may be needed.

Councillor Smith expressed concern about the sustainability and desirability of the proposed development and asked the Committee to refuse planning permission.

Mr Russell Close addressed the Committee to object to the application.  Mr Close informed the Committee that he was a resident of the Grove, which was a beautiful and spectacular location.  Grove House was of high historic value surrounded by rare trees and this was not was not the right location for a camp site.  This was a residential garden with other residents nearby.  The development would bring cars and noise which would be an intrusion to neighbouring properties.

The electricity and water supply to the site were both areas of concern.  A new water supply would need to be installed for the camping pods and this could cause damage to tree roots.  As previously explained, the electricity supply which was proposed to be used was a cable which had been installed to provide only light and a socket to a dovecote and was not suitable to supply power to four camping pods.

Mr Graham Turner, applicant, addressed the Committee.  The proposed development accorded with planning policies and if there were any concerns or objections Mr Turner informed the Committee he would do the utmost to mitigate risks.

The power supply cables to the proposed camping pods were not a planning issue.  Referring to noise and disturbance, Mr Turner informed the Committee that he main gate would be closed at 11 p.m. with an intercom to the house.  There would be no block bookings taken for the camping pods, which would be aimed at families and couples.  Dogs would not be allowed on the site.

The camping pods would be limited to a small area of a 2 acre garden, with the nearest pod being 70 metres from the nearest cottage.  Mr Turner informed the Committee that he would be happy to discuss which would be the best trees to use for screening, adding that the house and gardens were already well screened from the road and additional planting was proposed.

The specimen trees referred to were in the main garden and the camping pods would be located away from these trees.

NPPF Part 1 supported economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity.  This area of County Durham did not have much provision of visitor accommodation for events such as Kynren, and although this was a small development, would be a valuable addition to visitor accommodation.

Councillor Nicholson sought clarity on distances, environmental issues and the electricity and water supply.

The Planning Officer replied that the submitted site plan showed a separation distance of 70 metres between a camping pod and the nearest cottage.  The operator would be on site and would need a caravan site licence from the County Council, which would include water supply and electricity supply details.  No objections to the development had been raised by internal consultees.

Councillor Brown asked how many people the camping pods would accommodate.  The Planning Officer replied that two twin bed and two double bed pods were proposed.

Councillor Richardson informed the Committee that all issues raised by the objectors were valid and that he had grave concerns about the water supply to the site.  Councillor Richardson asked why any credence could be given to saved policy TR3 because the Committee had previously been advised that local saved plans were obsolete.  He informed the Committee that he could not support the application.

In reply to a question from Councillor Martin regarding how many people would be allowed on site, Councillor Nicholson said that this would be a condition of any license.

Councillor Tinsley informed the Committee that this was a beautiful part of the County and he was supportive of drivers to the economy and aces to the public.  This was a difficult application to be considered against Policy TR3 of the Local Plan.  The impact on residential amenity was a subjective view.

The Committee report at paragraph 30 outlined the reason why the Committee could attach significant weight to Policy TR3.  Policy TR3 was permissive of this type of development if it did not adversely impact neighbours amenities, however, whether the separation distance was 40 metres or 70 metres, this type of facility could be boisterous and impact on residential amenity.

Councillor Huntington sought an assurance that the Conditions proposed would be monitored and asked what action would be taken if they were not met.  The Planning Officer replied that some Conditions needed tp be discharged before works commenced and if others were not met then enforcement action may be taken.

The Planning and Development Solicitor advised the Committee that water supply to the site was a private law matter to resolve.  Referring to Policy TR3 in the saved Local Plan, the Committee could afford weight to this Policy because it was consistent with the NPPF.

Councillor Clare considered this was a difficult application.  Mr Lee had spoken very powerfully when he described the area as an area of solace and this was a relevant issue.  Reference had been made to development being part of an overall development plan and Councillor Clare reminded communities that they could develop their own Neighbourhood Plan for this reason.  However, no Neighbourhood Plan existed for this application.

It was the opinion of professional officers that the application met Policy TR3 and he did not consider that four camping pods could be described as destroying the character of the area, nor could removing four trees in Hamsterley Forest.  The hedging to be removed was Leylandii and was inappropriate for the area.

Councillor Clare considered the separation distance of 70 metres to be sufficient for residential amenity.  The site was aimed at the high end/family market.

The development would help to develop the visitor economy of the County and would encourage visitors to stay longer once here.  Councillor Clarer accepted the officer’s recommendation and moved approval of the application.

Seconded by Councillor Atkinson and

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the Conditions contained in the report.