A Derbyshire farmer’s plans to establish a glamping site have been rejected by the Derbyshire Dales District Council, marking his seventh unsuccessful planning application for the land in question.
Phil Kerry had submitted a proposal for land off Turlowfields Lane between Atlow and Hognaston, which included 10 tents, 10 timber pods, and two lodges.
Officials at the District Council meeting on April 11 cited the site’s remote location, inaccessibility by public transport, and dependence on cars as the primary reasons for rejecting the proposal.
The site is located two kilometers from Hognaston and 1.8 kilometers from Hulland Ward, requiring visitors to rely heavily on private cars for transportation.
Council members expressed concerns over the sustainability of the proposed glamping site. Some suggested revisiting the criteria for determining a sustainable location, noting that some areas with fewer bus services than the potential glamping site were not considered remote.
Janet Rose, a council member, raised concerns about the farmer’s persistence in submitting applications despite previous rejections.
She also pointed out a derelict caravan covered in graffiti on the site, which was echoed by Tom Donnelly. Both councilors expressed dismay at the current state of the site.
The article has implications for private glamp site owners and operators in the nearby area, as it demonstrates the challenges faced when attempting to establish new tourism developments in the region.
With the council prioritizing sustainability and accessibility, it’s essential for businesses in the camping and glamping sector to address these concerns in their proposals.
Chris Whitmore, the council’s head of planning, mentioned that sustainable locations are supposed to be an “attractive 10-minute walk” from basic services and facilities, which the Turlowfields site is not.
A report by council officers detailed that the site is approximately a 30-minute walk from Hognaston and a 25-minute walk from Hulland Ward along country lanes with no lighting or pavements.
In his application, Kerry argued that the scheme was sustainable and viable, stating that the proposed development would stimulate economic growth, create direct employment, and indirectly support local businesses and services.
However, the council ultimately determined that the project would not promote sustainable rural tourism nor be a sustainable form of farm diversification.
By focusing on the key details and addressing the concerns of both the council and the public, the article informs readers about the intricacies of rural tourism development and the need for sustainable practices in the industry.