Four glamping pods at The Racecourse Retreat Camp Site, Hey Lane, Wirksworth

What was proposed

The application sought four glamping pods with landscaping, car parking and access to the units.

“Planning permission is sought for the erection of 4 glamping pods, associated hard and soft landscaping works including car parking and access to units.”

Officer report

Site and planning history

The site lies southeast of Wirksworth, opposite a Grade II-listed farm, and earlier glamping proposals had been refused.

“The is located to the south east of Wirksworth with access via St Helen’s Lane and Hey Lane. The site access is off Hey Lane immediately opposite the entrance to Hardhurst Farm and farm buildings, which is grade II listed. The access runs adjacent to the north western boundary with Hurst Cottage and then turns east to the rear of the existing agricultural building on site.”

“24/00663/FUL Erection of 4 glamping pods associated hard and soft landscaping works including car parking and access to units. Refused 25/00017/FUL Agricultural barn for livestock and storage Permitted with conditions 24/01109/FUL Filtration plant shed Permitted with conditions 24/01103/FUL Retention of change of use of part of agricultural building to dwelling Permitted with conditions 22/00328/FUL Use of land for 6no. glamping pods. 2 no.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the site lacked suitable public transport and the development would harm the listed farm’s setting.

“− The proposal fails to comply with Policy EC9, specifically criterion ‘d’, as it is not served by public transport or within a safe attractive ten-minute walk of regular public transport services. This weighs against the application.”

“By virtue of its design, nature and siting, the proposed development would harm the significance of the grade II listed Hardhurst Farm. The harm would be less than substantial but would not be outweighed by the public benefits. The application is therefore contrary to Policy PD2 of the Adopted Derbyshire Dales Local Plan (2017) and the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The conservation officer objected, while the wildlife, archaeology and highway consultees raised no objections subject to conditions.

“Consultee Name Position Date Comments Conservation Objection 25/03/2026 Less than substantial harm to the Grade II Listed Hardhurst Farm due to impact on setting. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust No objection 07/04/2026 Conditions recommended securing construction mitigation measures and biodiversity net gain and enhancements as well as a badger survey.”

“The Town Council’s position will be that a building’s impact on the environment should be of greater importance than the impact on the streetscape. Lead Local Flood Authority No comments 06/02/2026 Not dealing with minor applications.”

Officer report

What people said

Objectors raised concerns about traffic, noise, privacy, drainage, ecology and sustainability, while supporters cited tourism, local accommodation and farm diversification.

“- Light pollution at night - Cumulative impact with existing camping on site - Increase in traffic, impact on highway safety - Insufficient visibility splays on site access - ‘Minibus’ solution is not sustainable - Insufficient resources to monitor the site - Noise pollution, especially at night - Insufficient evidence of farming operation - Impact on setting of listed building - Insufficient detail of ground and waste water arrangements - Inappropriate for the scale of the…”

“- Improves accommodation in the immediate area - Supports a family business - Enables farm diversification - Farm supports Macmillan patients and offers free stays…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Seven people spoke in support, including the agent and a National Farmers Union representative, while one person spoke against.

Decision and vote

The committee approved the application because economic benefits outweighed harm, subject to conditions, by nine votes to one.

“On the basis that the economic benefits arising from the development would outweigh any harm associated with the proposal, it was moved by Councillor Peter Slack, seconded by Councillor Stuart Lees and…”

“That planning permission be approved subject to planning conditions to minimise impacts arising from noise and light emanating from the development, the submission and implementation of a travel plan and any other conditions considered appropriate by the Development Manager in consultation with Chair of the Planning Committee to determine such conditions as deemed necessary.”

Minutes