Agenda item

Members had visited the site on the previous day.

The Head of Development Management introduced the item and updated Members regarding the three field barns which  the report stated were to be built and confirmed that this part of the proposal had been withdrawn.

The facilities building which was to be demolished was part of a historic farmstead which had been included in Historic England’s, Historic Farmsteads of the Peak District Project and had been assessed as a partially extant 19^th Century Farmstead which had lost a significant amount of the traditional features, with over 50% of the original building group removed. The arrangement of the internal rooms bore no resemblance to an historic farmstead and was not practical for visitors with access issues.

Additional conditions were presented by the Head of Development Management:

17. The lodges, cabins and camping pods shall only be sited in accordance with the submitted plans and no units shall be sited elsewhere within the application site.

18. Total number of lodges and cabins shall not exceed 85 and the number of camping pods will not exceed 25 no other static or touring caravans shall be brought onto the site at any time

.

19. Camping pods shall not include kitchen facilities and shall be no larger than as set out on plans.

20. Landscaping scheme shall be approved.

21. Scheme for protection of trees and replacement to be approved.

22. Removal waste and demolition materials prior to occupation unless otherwise approved.

The Head of Development Management  also confirmed that the following would be asked of the applicant:

?        Unilateral undertaking for relinquishment of existing planning permissions and rights

?        Inclusion of a Footnote: all cabins shall not exceed the definitions set out in the Caravan Act

The applicant had been requested to encourage visitors to the site to use the nearby trail and visit other parts of the National Park and was proposing to provide free bike hire as part of this promotion of visiting areas away from the site.

The Head of Development Management confirmed that although the three field barns were no longer to be included in the development a field barn type building would be built to house bats but would not be used for accommodation.

The removal of 41 trees would take place and a plan of trees to removed showed that there would be small numbers removed in various locations around the site.

The following spoke under the Public Participation at Meeting Scheme:

?        Roger Langham, Objector

?        Ellie Cass, Agent

Members requested clarification on the visibility of the tree houses which were not expected to have an impact on the landscape.  Signage would require advertisement consent.

The plan of the camping pod did show a sink but the Head of Development Management Officer confirmed that the pods would not include kitchen facilities and those staying in the pods would use the centralised facilities. The agent confirmed that there were plans for solar panels, ground source heat pump and recycling, the Head of Development Management confirmed these would be included in the conditions.

Members raised concerns regarding the demolition of the farmstead building as it still had some ‘fine’ features.  It was noted that Members had concerns regarding the policy issue that had not been addressed within the report and which stated that static caravans, chalets or lodges would not be permitted but paragraph 3 of RT3 did state upgrading facilities on existing sites would be encouraged.  Members noted that there is an exception for isolated sites but Members took that to mean small sites rather than a development of this scale.  Members had concerns regarding the proposal for chalets that were not replacements for existing static caravans or caravan storage but would replace touring caravan pitches.  Members felt that the report did not address the issue and allow for the approval of the proposal within policy.

The Chair summarised the concerns of the Members as follows:

1. Justification for the replacement of touring pitches with lodges, what allowed this to take place as it appears contrary to policy
2. Look at the preservation of the current facilities building (farmstead) to be incorporated into the plan.

The Head of Development Management addressed the concerns as follows:

1. It is difficult to compare the existing offer with the proposal as there was such a variety of caravans and pitches to be replaced.  The proposal did fit with RT3 D as it would improve the facilities of the site and the overall look and feel would be improved.
2. The current farmstead building was substantially altered and retained little interest, if the decision were taken to repurpose the building it would be difficult to decide which parts of the building should be preserved. 

Members noted that there had been a previous planning application to put static caravans on the site allowed at appeal but there was no information about why that application had been refused.

A motion to defer the application to allow further clarification regarding policy RT3 was moved and seconded.

Members noted that any future report should be clear about the justifications for allowing this proposal and how it fitted within policy.

The motion to defer the application was voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED for Officers to clarify the following:

• Whether this would set a precedent for other sites. 

• The historic/vernacular interest that is retained in the existing facilities buildings and whether this could/should be retained

• Better explanation of how the scheme relates to policy.

• The appeal decision which allowed statics in 1995.

• More information about the landscape impact and possible impacts on dark skies of the glazed elevation of the facilities building.

• Revisions of the maintenance building design.

A motion to move item 7 of the agenda to the end of the meeting was approved.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 for a short break and reconvened at 11.25