41-pitch motorhome campsite at Holmesfield Mill Bridge Castleton

What was proposed

The application sought a motorhome campsite with 21 all-year pitches, about 20 seasonal pitches, toilet facilities, access changes and boundary planting.

“This application seeks full planning permission for the change of use of the field parcel for use as a motorhome camping site. The site would be separated into two sections, north and south bisected by the track which crosses the site. To the north, the application proposes 21 all-year pitches comprised of ~15 pitches on grassland and 6 pitches on existing hardstanding to the west of the site.”

“The application also seeks retrospective planning permission for the alterations to the site access which were carried out between the withdrawal of the previous planning application in 2023 and the submission of this planning application. The alterations to the site access include the relocation of the gateposts approximately 10m metres back and the widening of hardstanding within the access.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The field lies between Hollowford Road and the A6187, north of Castleton, beside Peakshole Water and within the conservation area’s setting.

“Holmesfield Farm is located between Hollowford Road and the A6187, to the north of the village of Castleton. The section of the farm subject to this application is accessed from the A6187 just north of Mill Bridge where the road bents to the east.”

“The house and buildings are accessed off Hollowford Road, near Millbridge, which is a narrow lane that leads northwards out of the centre of Castleton village. The farm bungalow and associated buildings are positioned on elevated ground above Peakshole Water, the stream that flows around the north side of Castleton and through the farm.”

Officer report

Earlier use and applications

Earlier permissions included agricultural buildings, a withdrawn campsite application, and campsite operation under permitted development rights for up to 60 days each year.

“2022: NP/HPK/0422/0586: Change of use of agricultural land to caravan and motorhome camp site. Application withdrawn.”

“2023: Since 2023, the site has operated as a campsite using the Class BC Permitted Development Rights for up to 60-days per year.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would harm landscape character and heritage, while access and flood risk information remained inadequate.

“The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the valued landscape character and a harmful impact on the setting of the Castleton Conservation Area. In addition to this, there is significant concern regarding the safety of the site access onto A6187 Castleton Road and the access track being located in Flood Zone 3B functional floodplain.”

“Having balanced the identified harm to the special qualities of the area and substandard technical details against the economic benefits of the proposal, in addition to other material planning considerations such as permitted development rights, the benefits do not outweigh the identified harm.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors, a parish council representative and the agent spoke under the public participation scheme.

What members discussed

Members discussed flood risk, representations, biodiversity gain, visitor pressures, the site’s location, landscaping, permitted development and a request for deferral.

“The site is outside of the Castleton conservation area. • Over 200 representations have been received regarding this application which mainly cover the principal of the development and the impact on the conservation area. • Regarding the flood risk the area of the site is in Zone 3b, which is a functional flood plain. • The area covered by the application is slightly larger than the guidance which is up to a maximum of 41 pitches, this application is for 20-30 pitches.”

“There were concerns that Members were asking to approve an application which was beyond the Castleton boundary and into the open land. • Members felt that the size and scale of the vehicles provide a visual and landscape intrusion and the current landscaping proposal is not sufficient to mask the development. The current situation contains the camping to 60 days across the summer months when the trees are in leaf.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A motion to refuse the application was moved, seconded and carried.

“A motion to refuse the application was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because of harm to landscape and the conservation area, flood risk and failure to demonstrate a safe site access.

“The application has not been supported by a sequential test to demonstrate that the development cannot be located in an area of low flood risk. The proposed development would be classified as more vulnerable to flood risk and would not be a compatible use within Flood Zone 3b. The proposed development is therefore in conflict with policy CC1, paragraphs 170 and 173 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.”

“The application has failed to demonstrate that the site access is safe for its intended use. The proposed development is therefore in conflict with policy DMT3.”

Minutes