33 holiday pitches at Haystax Holiday Park, Consett

What was proposed

The application proposed 33 additional holiday lodge pitches and an access road, with land provided for biodiversity net gain.

“The application seeks planning permission for the development of a further 33 lodge pitches and an access road to the units to the south and east of the current 17 pitches being developed to the east of the site access road. The site includes an area to the south of the proposed pitches that would be other…”

Officer report

The site today

The holiday park is in countryside and already includes 19 holiday units, a play area, reception, parking and a café.

“The application site is known as Haystax Holiday Park which lies south of Longedge Lane in the countryside 1 mile south of Knitsley, 1.5 miles south of Delves Lane and 3 miles to the west of Lanchester centre. The site itself forms part of a larger ‘triangle’ of agricultural land bounded by Longedge Lane, Eliza Lane and Millershill Lane.”

“The site currently encompasses 19 holiday units and a play area to the west of a spine road, a reception office and parking to the east of the entrance, and a café which is undergoing refurbishment. Planning permission is in place for the development of a further 17 pitches to the east of the spine road…”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

The site has a complex history of permissions and amendments for holiday lodges, play barns, the café, reception, parking and site layouts.

“The site has a complex history with planning consent being originally being granted for 37 Holiday Lodges (including 9no highly accessible lodges and 1no Managers Lodge) and a Play Barn in 2020 but which was unable to be implemented due to unavailability of lodge types. This permission was later amended by DM/21/00465/NMA with alternative lodge types.”

“This site has a complex planning history as detailed above.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because tourism, employment and visitor accommodation benefits outweighed limited landscape and sustainability conflicts, subject to conditions.

“In favour of the proposal, first and foremost is the economic benefits of the proposal in respect of tourism spending and employment which gains support in respect of the objectives of the County Durham Plan and Paragraph 85 and 88 of the NPPF. This carries significant positive weight in favour of the development in the planning balance.”

“As there is a minor policy conflict the benefits of the proposal have been weighed against the policy conflict identified in the planning balance above. This case has particular significant economic benefits through the provision of overnight visitor accommodation, would provide for opportunities to be more sustainable, is well designed, and in keeping with and complementary to its surroundings.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council and local groups objected, while highways, the Coal Authority, Visit County Durham and several other consultees supported or raised no objection.

“The Coal Authority – Do not object but request informatives in relation to the potential need for a mining remediation authority permit and incidental coal agreements.”

“Visit County Durham - Advise that there is an undersupply of visitor accommodation within the county and more specifically accommodation for visitors who may have additional needs. It is pointed out that visitor numbers are increasing year on year in the county and in 2023, the visitor economy was worth £1.23billion to County Durham. Reference is made to many of our large attractions having invested heavily in their facilities.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Residents and rural protection groups raised concerns about the change from SEND-focused accommodation, further expansion, screening, landscape, drainage, noise, traffic and year-round use.

“The original application for the holiday park was submitted and accepted on the premise of a small unobtrusive development promoting SEND facilities, and the opportunities this would present. • The local residents were unanimously against the original planning proposal, understanding the environmental impact and increased traffic related issues.”

“The Visit County Durham response refers to the occupiers being the SEND Community. • The proposed second stage of the project is to double in size with a further 33 holiday lodges, with no further mention of, or increase in disabled access. • This should be a whole new application for a change of use to a static caravan park. • There will be more expansion to come in the future.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local farmer spoke against the application, and the planning consultant spoke in support, citing screening, local use, employment and inclusive accommodation.

What members discussed

Members discussed the play area, possible future camping pitches, tourism benefits, visitor accommodation needs and the site’s screening from the road.

“Councillor A Bell asked for clarification on the location of the children’s play park in proximity to the road and if there was a plan for future applications for camping and touring caravan pitches. Senior Planning Officer responded that the play park was already constructed and was enclosed by stone walls along the access road. Touring and camping pitches would be a separate planning application and was not included in the current application.”

“Councillor C Martin noted that the site was screened from the road by hedge planting and the need for inclusive holiday accommodation that attracted income to the area outweighed any negative impact and seconded the proposal.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The mover and seconder agreed to the reported amendment before the vote was taken.

“Ahead of a vote being taken the Legal Officer, Laura Ackermann requested that the mover and seconder note the amendments in paragraph 10 of the report as shared by the Officer and confirmed that they agreed to procced. It was agreed.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application subject to the agreed conditions and the amended flood-risk wording.

“The Officer shared revised wording for Condition 10 with the Committee, noting that none of the holiday units hereby approved shall be occupied until a Flood Risk Warning and Evacuation Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.”

“[name withheld], Planning Consultant spoke in support of the application. He stated that the applicant had worked closely with Planning Officers to meet all recommendations, and the item had been called to Committee as one Statutory consultee; Lanchester Parish Council, had objected.”

Minutes