Seven eco glamping pods at Land adjacent to Raven Bridge Farm, Renwick, Penrith

What was proposed

The application sought seven self-contained glamping pods with access, parking, landscaping, ecological enhancements and supporting plant facilities.

“THE PROPOSAL 3.1 The application seeks full planning permission for a small-scale eco-tourism development comprising: • 7 no. self-contained “glamping” pods…”

“A new vehicular access and parking/service area • Associated landscaping and ecological enhancements • Plant, solar battery store and back-up generator building 3.2 The scheme represents a reduction from a previously withdrawn proposal and has been redesigned to address earlier concerns. The pods are modest in scale, single-storey structures with flat biosolar roofs and timber cladding, designed to integrate with the rural landscape.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site is an agricultural field near Raven Bridge Farm, outside but close to the North Pennines National Landscape, with earlier applications for a stable block and ten pods.

“The application site comprises an agricultural field located adjacent to Raven Bridge Farm/Mill, approximately 500m south of Renwick. The site slopes down towards its southern boundary, which is defined by Raven Beck and contains dense vegetation and tree cover, while the northern boundary is more open and adjoins the C3004 public highway. The land lies outside, but is in close proximity to, the North Pennines National Landscape.”

“Application Ref: 08/0616 Proposal: Construction of stable block for private domestic equestrian use. Decision: Approved with Conditions Decision Date: 16/10/2008”

Officer report

What consultees said

Statutory consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while the North Pennines partnership and parish council objected over landscape, biodiversity, highways, amenity and drainage.

“The AONB Partnership provided comments in relation to the site’s proximity to the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and relevant national and local planning policy. Key points: - Reference to the statutory duty under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, requiring decision-makers to give due regard to conserving and enhancing natural beauty.”

“- Highway safety and traffic: The submitted traffic survey was undertaken in March 2021 during COVID‑19 lockdown, which the Parish Council considers unrepresentative of typical traffic and cycling levels. - Concerns that increased traffic would heighten risks on a road that forms part of the Coast to Coast Cycle Route, which is heavily used in summer months.”

Officer report

What residents said

Twenty-two objections and one observation raised concerns about the countryside location, traffic, landscape, wildlife, disturbance, drainage, design and limited community benefits.

“- Highway safety and access - concerns regarding increased traffic on a narrow rural road, which is also part of the Coast to Coast (C2C) Cycle Route, heavily used by cyclists, motorcyclists and agricultural vehicles, particularly during summer months. Objections to the traffic survey being undertaken during COVID‑19 lockdown, with claims that it does not reflect normal traffic or cycling conditions.”

“- Biodiversity and ecology - concerns regarding the loss of hedgerows, trees and grassland habitat, including potential impacts on wildlife. Objections that ecological assessments do not adequately consider disturbance arising from human occupation, including noise, lighting, vehicles and activity. Objections that the proposal would result in a net loss of biodiversity, contrary to relevant policies.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident and the parish council clerk spoke against the application, while the applicant spoke in support of its mitigation and rural tourism benefits.

What members discussed

Members discussed the relevant housing policy, supervision, traffic survey, biodiversity, pod regulation, guest behaviour and site access, leading to an amended management condition.

“Councillor C Atkinson questioned the management of the site and how guests’ behaviour would be supervised, citing concerns regarding noise and other disturbance that could be generated. The Planning Officer responded that the applicant had confirmed that a manager would be on site during guest stay and that the site would not be marketed to clients likely to cause a disturbance such as Hen or Stag Parties.”

“Councillor A Connell questioned how guests would gain access to the site and pods, with the applicant advising that management on site would grant access.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The committee voted five to three to grant permission, adding a condition requiring approval of a revised management plan before development began.

“Councillor N McCall proposed and Councillor L Baker seconded, that subject to the addition of a condition that no development shall commence until a revised management plan had been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, that the application be approved.”

“RESOLVED, that planning permission be granted subject to the addition of a condition that no development shall commence until a revised management plan had been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and subject to following conditions set out in the report:”

Minutes