Shepherd’s hut holiday accommodation at Land to the South East of the Glen Hollinsclough Rake

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for a shepherd’s hut used as holiday accommodation and a surfaced access track.

“Retrospective planning permission is sought for the change of use of the land to allow the stationing of a shepherd’s hut and the creation of a surfaced access track.”

“Retrospective planning permission is sought for the change of use of the land to allow the stationing of a shepherd’s hut and use as holiday accommodation and the creation of a surfaced access track.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is in open countryside near Hollinsclough, with nearby properties, open valley views, a footpath and a ruined field barn.

“The site lies within open countryside approximately 1km to the north west of Hollinsclough. The shepherd’s hut is located to the south west of Hollinsclough Rake, the public highway running north west from Hollinsclough towards Flash. The hut is sited on land within the ownership of The Glen, a property located approximately 120 metres to the north west on the opposite side of Hollinsclough Rake.”

“To the west of the shepherd’s hut, the land falls in elevation fairly gently to the stream in the valley bottom and then rises in elevation more steeply on the other side of the stream. Tree cover is mostly found in a linear form along the watercourse and along Hollinsclough Rake. Overall, the landscape is open with views over the valley below and to the higher ground on the western side of the valley.”

Officer report

Earlier enforcement history

An open enforcement case concerns the change of use of agricultural land for a shepherd’s hut used as a holiday let.

“20/0011 – Open enforcement case in relation to change of use of land from agricultural to siting of shepherd’s hut used as a holiday let.”

Officer report

Other effects considered

The development was considered acceptable for residential amenity, highway safety subject to a condition and climate change mitigation.

“The nearest neighbouring property is Moorfield Farm, approximately 80 metres to the north east. Due to the distance between the development and this property including the presence of the public highway between the two, the development does not result in any material loss of residential amenity for the occupiers of Moorfield Farm and therefore the development accords with policies GSP3 and DMC3 in this respect.”

“Staffordshire County Council as highway authority has confirmed no objection to the development subject to a condition requiring the access to be kerbed and surfaced and thereafter maintained in a bound material for a minimum distance of 5 metres from the back edge of the highway boundary.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The highway authority raised no objection subject to an access condition, while the parish council supported the application and the district council did not respond.

“Highway Authority (Staffordshire County Council) – No objection subject to condition requiring access to be kerbed and surfaced and thereafter maintained in a bound material for a minimum distance of 5 metres from the back edge of the highway boundary.”

“Hollinsclough Parish Council – Supports the application. Minimal impact upon landscape, well managed operation, development supports the local economy.”

Officer report

Letters of support

Three letters supported the proposal, citing limited effects, local income, visitor benefits and a possible deterrent to rural crime.

“Three letters of support have been received raising the following points (in summary – the full letters can be read on the application file):”

“No impact upon residential amenity of nearby occupiers. • No impact upon landscape character and is in keeping with its surroundings. • Provides income for a local resident. • Provides unusual, remote and peaceful location for visitors to National Park to stay. • When occupied provides a deterrent or witness to rural crime.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke under the public participation scheme.

The committee vote

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

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

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the hut did not support farm diversification, was not near farmstead facilities and caused significant landscape harm.

“The siting of a single shepherd’s hut for holiday accommodation in this location fails to accord with the Authority’s Local Plan policies RT3, DMR1 and DME2 because it does not support farm diversification and is not located close to the facilities of a farmstead.”

“The development, by reason of its isolated location in open countryside, results in significant visual harm to the landscape, its character and the wider scenic beauty of the National Park. The development is therefore contrary to the landscape conservation objectives set out in the NPPF and the Authority’s Local Plan policies GSP1, GSP3, L1 and DMC3.”

Minutes