14 residential caravans at Hargate Hill Equestrian Centre, Glossop

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for 14 touring caravans to be occupied permanently, with associated development and access through the equestrian centre.

“The application as submitted seeks retrospective full planning permission for the change of use of land for the siting of caravans for residential occupation with associated development.”

“The proposal is retrospective for the change of use of land at Hargate Hill Equestrian Centre, Glossop, for the siting of 14 x caravans for residential use. The intended occupants are individuals or households, mainly on High Peak Borough Council’s housing waiting list or otherwise homeless and who do not have access to permanent homes.”

Officer report

The site

The land is within the Hargate Hill Equestrian Centre, outside the built-up area, in open countryside and the Green Belt.

“This application relates to a rectangular parcel of land located within the large planning unit that accommodates the Hargate Hill Equestrian Centre.”

“For the purposes of the Local Development Plan the site lies outside of the built-up area boundary in the open countryside and is constrained by the Green Belt.”

Officer report

Planning history

Relevant history includes approval for land excavation, an indoor riding arena and a car park in 1999.

“The wider site has a lengthy planning history. The planning history that is considered to be relevant to this application is presented below:”

“HPK/0003/6674 Excavation of land and erection of new indoor riding arena and car park (Approved 19/07/1999)”

Officer report

Why officers advised refusal

Officers considered the proposal an unsuitable permanent caravan site that would harm Green Belt openness, landscape character and future occupants’ living conditions.

“For the reasons set out within the report, this application cannot be regarded as an application for housing development. On the basis that this application must be treated as a Caravan Site, the application is in direct conflict with LP Policies S1, S2, EQ2, EQ3, E6 and E7.”

“Moreover, the application has failed to demonstrate an unmet need for the nature of proposed development comprising the siting of caravans for permanent occupation and as such fails to comply with Paragraph 155(b) of the NPPF. The application therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt.”

Officer report

What residents said

Six objections raised concerns about infrastructure, Green Belt harm, transport, safety, waste and the suitability of caravans, while eleven supported the scheme’s housing benefits.

“Area not able to accommodate more residential houses being built, in adequate infrastructure • Further decimation of green spaces • Drastic change in character • Residential caravan park not in keeping with location or demographic • Site benefits from limited public transport links, which will increase reliance on private vehicle • How will the Council ensure safety of the users of the nearby Rugby Club and local Primary Schools are protected and that the tenants of the…”

“Proposal represents a ‘life line’ to people that need help that find themselves with nowhere other than a caravan for warmth and shelter. • Witnessed positive impact that the caravans have had on the lives of the tenants • Occupants are not typical homeless people, they are people with jobs who don’t earn enough to occupy a house of their own with the rising costs of living • Worry that should application be refused, these people will become homeless then jobless which…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A resident addressed the committee in support of the application.

Committee consideration

The committee undertook a site visit before deciding the application.

“The Committee had undertaken a site visit.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application as set out in the officer report and delegated limited wording changes before the decision was issued.

“That the application be refused as set out in the report; and…”

“That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.”

Minutes