15 holiday lodges at Mayfields, Hady, Chesterfield

What was proposed

The application sought 15 holiday lodges, a reception, shop and maintenance building, a children’s play area and access using the existing driveway.

“The application is for the change of use of the land for the siting of 15 holiday lodges and ancillary shop/reception/maintenance building and play area. The site would be accessed by the existing driveway leading from Hady Lane. The details of the proposal in terms of the scale and design of the lodges and the layout of the site are as follows:”

“The application is supported by a Planning, Design and Access Statement, the pertinent points from this are summarised: - The layout seeks to provide15. No. cedar clad, 3 bedroom lodges of 6m x 12m with two 2.5m x 5.5m parking spaces to each and will have a small external amenity area of circa 35sqm for each lodge. Each lodge would be screened by a hawthorn and blackthorn hedge.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site lies behind existing Gypsy and Traveller pitches, near a primary school, homes and a treed area, and is accessed from Hady Lane.

“Hady Primary school and playing fields lie to the north of the site with residential development to the east and a large treed area to the west and south of the site. The site itself appears to have been cleared and surfaced with an unbound material.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier holiday lodge proposals were refused or withdrawn, while nearby traveller and residential developments received permission subject to conditions.

“CHE/22/00778/FUL Re-submission of CHE/22/00212/FUL - Change of use of land to holiday lodge site with 15 lodges – Refused 24.06.2024 for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is for the development of a contaminated former land fill site which is known to be actively gassing and where it is not considered feasible for the land to be made reasonably safe and fit for…”

“CHE/22/00212/FUL Change of use of land to holiday lodge site with 15 lodges – withdrawn 23.06.2022”

Officer report

What people said

Fourteen contributors objected over safety, gas, traffic, noise, wildlife and loss of green space, while eleven supported jobs, tourism and investment.

“- Disappointed by repeated applications when all previous objections remain valid. - Additional noise from holiday rentals, people on site and increase waste collection. - Unacceptable use in a quiet residential location - Increased light pollution which will deter wildlife. - Adverse impact on wildlife in the area. - It is located on a busy road with traffic issues at school pick up and drop off times. - Additional traffic would be a risk to children.”

“Support comments from 11 of the 25 contributors: - Support, it will bring in jobs for local people and be a boost for the town’s tourism. - This will be good for people visiting or working at the hospital. - Good idea for the town and a stone’s throw from the town centre. - Would be an injection of new things happening in the area. - Investment in the town. - Gassing report evidences that the development would be safe. HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Principal Planner presented the application, and a statement from the applicant was read to the committee.

What members debated

Members discussed continuing gas emissions, whether risks had been fully assessed, proposed protective design features and the need for a cautious approach.

“It was explained that the application had previously been refused for 2 reasons: gassing and accessibility. The accessibility reason had improved since the previous application, but the actively gassing issue was not considered feasible for the land to be made reasonably safe and fit for the proposed use and a cautionary approach had been recommended in the officer’s report.”

“The Committee considered the report and recommendations within it and Councillors obtained clarification that the site is still gassing. The Council’s Solicitor sought clarification whether the application had fully assessed ground gas risks as suggested in Derbyshire County Council’s (DCC’s) conclusions.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillor Stone moved, and Councillor Davenport seconded, a motion to uphold the officer recommendation; no alternative motion was proposed.

“It was moved by Councillor Stone and seconded by Councillor Davenport that the officer recommendation be upheld.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee upheld the officer recommendation and refused the application for the reason given in the officer’s report.

“That the officer recommendation be upheld, and the application be REFUSED for the reason outlined in the officer’s report.”

Minutes