Three holiday cabins at New House Farm Beet Lane The Wash Chapel-En-Le-Frith

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for three holiday cabins, with approval of their layout and scale while other details remained reserved.

“The application seeks outline planning permission for the siting of 3 cabins for holiday accommodation.”

“As part of the application approval is sought for matters of layout and scale. All other matters including access, appearance and landscaping are reserved. If outline planning permission were granted a further application for approval of reserved matters would be required.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was a steeply rising field beside Beet Lane, near New House Farm and its Grade II listed farmhouse, with a public footpath along the access track.

“The application site comprises a field adjacent to Beet Lane which runs along the western boundary. New House Farm is located to the east. New House farmhouse is a Grade II listed building.”

“The field comprises a mixture of scrub and newly planted trees. Access is via an existing track from Beet Lane which runs along the southern boundary of the field towards the farmstead. A public footpath runs along this track (HP8/58).”

Officer report

Application background

The applicant had trialled an on-site wild campsite and proposed adding cabins over five years to provide additional farm income.

“The proposed cabins would be for residential use as holiday accommodation. The applicant has trialled an on-site wild campsite and now proposes this development to provide additional income for the farm. The applicant intends to install one cabin as a pilot with two further cabins added over five years if successful.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council supported farm diversification but questioned the prominent siting, while the Authority’s ecology and landscape officers objected or raised concerns.

“Supports the principle of this small scale farm diversification project, but raises concerns about the proposed siting of the cabins, particularly 2 and 3 which they are concerned would be very prominent in the landscape. Could the Peak Park suggest a less prominent location within the farm that might be used for this purpose instead?”

“There needs to be details, specification and maintenance proposals for the proposed planting – while this may not require permission itself, it is an integral part of demonstrating enhancement on the site – without this woodland creation, the proposal will cause landscape and visual harm.”

Officer report

Public representations

No letters of representation had been received by the time of the report.

“The Authority has received no letters of representation to date. If any representations are received, they will be updated at the meeting.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke under the public participation scheme, and the planning officer presented the application and reasons for refusal.

What members discussed

Members noted the cabins would be removable buildings, considered planting and visibility, and felt the location and available chalet information were unsuitable.

“Some Members had visited the site the previous day.”

“It was clarified that the cabins will buildings and not caravans but would be easily removable. • The application is set in open landscape and can be viewed by neighbours. • A statement from the landowner was tabled at the meeting and passed to the Chair but not read out. • The application includes a 35 year planting agreement of which requires 80% of the trees to be established by year 5, the average height of the trees to be 5 metres.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee carried a motion to refuse the application because of principle, landscape and heritage harm, biodiversity and foul drainage concerns.

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

“The development would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of New House farmhouse (Grade II listed) and Beet Farm (a non-designated heritage asset of local significance). The harm would not be outweighed by public benefits and therefore the development is contrary to policies L3, DMC5, DMC7 and the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Minutes