Decision details

The Planning Officer presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Jane Newman, speaking on behalf of a neighbour, Objector

·         Caroline Pickstone, Objector

·         George Galbraith, Applicant

Cllr Hart left the room at 12.05pm.

The Members noted that this is not a traditional development and that Edale is a huge conservation area with specific special qualities.  It was clarified that a seasonal development which returns each year is classified as permanent, even though the intention is to remove the bell tents at the end of each season.  The Planning Officer and Applicant confirmed the details regarding the hedgerow. 

A motion to refuse the application due to the characteristics of the area was proposed, seconded, voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed development seeks consent for the installation of 3 bell-tents. These structures are considered to be akin to camping pods, yurts, and shepherd huts which the accompanying text to policy DMR1 advises will be determined against policy RT3.B which sets out that proposals for static caravans, chalet and lodges will not be permitted. Acceptance of this proposal would cause harm by undermining the clear intent of adopted recreation and conservation policies and set a clear precedent for others to follow further undermining policy. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies RT3 and DMR1.

2. The proposed development would have a harmful impact on the special qualities of the National Park through the introduction of non-traditional and alien structures in an undeveloped, pastoral field in the open countryside. On this basis, it does not comply with the National Park’s purposes and meet the definition of sustainable development in this context. It is therefore contrary to policies GSP1 and GSP2.