COMMITTEE REPORT

Application Ref. 16/04039/FUL

Site Address Land South of Holycombe House, Whichford, Shipston-On-Stour, Warwickshire

Description of Development

1. Use of approximately 4565sqm of land for camping, accommodating not more than 40 campers in tents or small camper vans and associated areas for vehicle parking alongside tents;2. Glamping structures within an area of approximately 1,040 sqm accommodating not more than 26 people comprising: 4 moveable wooden bases accommodating canvas yurts and bell tents , airstream wheeled caravan, gypsy caravan on wheels, Showman's living van on wheels, wooden boat house and associated areas for vehicle parking alongside glamping structures;3. Associated wooden facilities: compost WC, shower shed, flush WC, camping kitchen, disabled WC;4. Alterations to access to campsite’

Applicant Mr & Mrs Birtwell

Reason for Referral to Committee

Scale of developmentIn light of significant public interest

Case Officer Alice Cosnett

Presenting Officer Alice Cosnett

Ward Member(s) Councillor S Gray

Town/Parish Council Whichford Parish Council

Description of Site Constraints

All other settlement Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Whichford Conservation Area Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) Whichford Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) to

southwest/west of the site Public footpaths to south and east Poor grade agricultural land (according to the Natural England

Agricultural Land Classification Map West Midlands)

Summary of Recommendation

GRANT for a temporary 2 year period

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

Planning permission is sought to regularise a number of uses and structures within the site edged red, land south of Holycombe House. The proposal comprises:

Use of approximately 4565sqm of land for camping, accommodating not more than 40 campers in tents or small camper vans and associated areas for vehicle parking alongside tents;

Glamping structures accommodating not more than 26 people comprising: 4 moveable wooden bases accommodating canvas yurts and bell tents, airstream wheeled caravan, gypsy caravan on wheels, Showman's living van on wheels, wooden boat house and associated areas for vehicle parking alongside glamping structures;

Associated wooden facilities: compost WC, shower shed, flush WC, camping kitchen, disabled WC;

Alterations to access to campsite

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Development Plan

Core StrategyRelevant Policies in the Development Plan for this application are

CS.1 Sustainable Development CS.4 Water Environment and Flood Risk CS.5 Landscape CS.6 Natural Environment CS.8 Historic Environment CS.9 Design and Distinctiveness CS.11 Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty CS.15 Distribution of Development CS.20 Existing Housing Stock and Buildings CS.22 Economic Development CS.24 Tourism and Leisure Development AS.10 Countryside and Villages CS.25 Healthy Communities CS.26 Transport and Communications

Other Material Considerations

Central Government guidance NPPF 2012 & PPG 2014 Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

Other documents Stratford on Avon District Design Guide – While no longer having the

status of a Supplementary Planning Document, it still contains substantial and relevant guidance on design

Historic England Good Practice Notes 2105:o GPA 1 – The Historic Environment in Local Planso GPA 2 – Manging Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic

Environmento GPA 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets

Whichford and Ascott Parish Plan November 2010 Cotswold AONB Management Plan 2013-2018 Cotswold AONB A Strategy and Action Plan for Sustainable Tourism in the

Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 2011-2016

Other Legislation

Human Rights Act 1998 Equalities Act 2010 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Localism Act Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act of 1979 Town & Country Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY

Reference Number Proposal Decision and date

15/02005/FUL Change of Use of Holycombe House with The Studio and The Lodge and grounds to a mixed use of dwelling, residential study course and holistic retreat business (As defined in Appendix 1 - Business Operations Dated 6th February 2017). Additional use of Studio and Lodge accommodation as holiday lets. Retention of woodwork shop, 4 no. storage outbuildings, hen pen, gazebo, compost WC, tree house and hexagon summerhouse. Gazebo and tree house to be used for overnight accommodation

Pending consideration

15/00708/COUENF Enforcement notice against unauthorised works

Served 09.01.2017

SCOPE/00028 EIA Scoping application for the following development:Element 1- the redetermination of the development forming the subject of planning application reference 15/02005/FUL, which is described as Change of Use of Holycombe House with The Studio and The Lodge and grounds to a mixed use of dwelling, residential study course and holistic retreat business (As defined in Appendix 1 - Business Operations Dated 27th August 2015). Additional use of Studio and Lodge accommodation as holiday lets.

Element 2: (to be considered in a separate planning application)- the use of approximately 4565 of land for camping, accommodating not more than 40 campers in tents or small camper vans. Associated

Closed 15.09.2016

vehicles to be parked alongside tents;- Glamping structures accommodating not more than 26 people comprising 2 No. moveable canvas yurts, 2 No. moveable canvas bell tents, an airstream wheeled caravan, a Gypsy caravan on wheels, a Showmans living van on wheels and a wooden boat house, and associated parking areas;- Timber camping facilities including a compost WC, a shower shed, a flush WC, camping kitchen and a disabled WC- Alterations to the existing access

SCREEN/00051 Proposed campsite EIA required 05.07.2016Appeal against EIA screening decision – Secretary of State directed that ‘The Project’ was not EIA development (see ‘EIA Screening’ section of report below) 21.11.2016

14/00776/LDE Retention of structures/buildings (which have been in situ for 4 years or more) and include:1. Woodwork shop2. Wooden Garage, Shed and Loo3. Gazebo Camping Hut4. Blockboard Camping Loo5. Terracing for Large Tent6. Hexagonal Camping Kitchen7. Double compost Camping Loo8. Double Camping Shower Block9. Wooden Camping Kitchen10. Camping Shed

Pending consideration

14/00775/LDE Use of the original buildings (Associated with the property Holycombe) from C3 to a mixed use of C1, C2, C3, D1(a), D1(b), D1(c) and D2(e) uses and use of the land (Associated with the property Holycombe) to use D2 to provide camping site and facilities for over 10 years.

Pending consideration

12/01758/FUL Part change of use of Holycombe House to mixed use of residential and residential study courses under a combined C2 and C3 Use Class. Part change of use of studio accommodation over garage to provide ancillary residential use to Holycombe House (use by extended family) and occasional use as C3 use holiday let and C2 use overspill for

Pending consideration

(original decision issued 12.09.2013 but quashed following successful judicial review challenge)

holistic business. Part change of use of ancillary building to occasional C3 Use holiday let and C2 Use overspill for holistic business. Change of use of land to camping area. Change of use of land to site photovoltaic array and 1no polytunnel to grow produce for own consumption. Change of use of timber structures to allow use as camping kitchen. Change of use of land to station 2 wooden camping trailers. Retrospective planning permission for 1 demountable yurt base, 1 tree house, 1 nature observation hut, 1 seating area and a camping shower and toilet. Erection of wedding marquee (4 times a year) with restriction on amplified music between 8pm and 12pm. Creation of new access for camping area and associated works including re-positioning of existing gates and piers.

00/00518/FUL A conservatory Granted 13.04.2000

98/00155/FUL An extra garage block Granted 30.04.1998

96/01534/FUL Demolition of part of existing house and its conversion to a garage/office block. Demolition of disused farm buildings and building of a replacement house on site. Change of use of agricultural land to residential curtilage

Granted 13.02.1997

The site has been used for camping/glamping for some time. In 2011 investigations by the Council’s Enforcement team resulted in a retrospective application (ref. 12/01758/FUL) being submitted to the Council to regularise the unauthorised use of the site as a whole (both use of Holycombe House as a holistic retreat and camping on land to its south). Whilst this application was granted, following a successful judicial review the decision was quashed. This application therefore remains pending.

Since then, the applicants have submitted two lawful development certificates for the proposed unauthorised development, which also remain pending.

This application seeks consent to use the site to the south of Holycombe House as described in the amended description of development and supporting information, and for the purposes of clarification, does not seek to regularise the unauthorised holistic retreat use of the dwelling itself (and associated uses), which is the subject of separate application 15/02005/FUL.

Notwithstanding the conclusions reached by the Secretary of State in that the development proposed under this application and application 15/02005/FUL should be considered as one project for the purposes of EIA (and that the development is not EIA), in terms of processing the applications for planning permission, I have concluded that assessing the use of the land for

camping/glamping separate to that of the unauthorised holistic retreat use is appropriate for the reasons set out below:

1. the camping use is an independent and separate planning unit/project which, although some campers/glampers may choose to use the retreat centre, is not reliant on the holistic retreat use or vice versa, as confirmed by the applicants; and

2. the two uses have separate points of access and are run as separate entities by the applicants.

It is on this basis that the application has been evaluated.

The Enforcement Notice referred to in the Summary of Relevant History above was served on the basis of all of the unauthorised works/uses which cover both the Holycombe House site and agricultural land to its south (red lines for both this application and pending application 16/04039/FUL). When assessing the enforcement case, it was not considered that there was any reason why all of the unauthorised works/uses should not be enforced against in a single Enforcement Notice.

However, as described above, I am satisfied that the camping/glamping within the site edged red for this application, can be operated completely independently from the holistic retreat business/associated uses on land to the north (considered under ref. 15/02005/FUL) and two applications have been submitted on this basis. Because the two elements are not dependent on one another and can be operated completely independently from one another, I do not consider this to be inappropriate.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant’s Supporting Documents

List of documents: Planning Statement Appendix 1 – Business Operations dated 6 February 2017 Management Plan

Ward Member

None received

Whichford and Ascott Parish Council

Support the application subject to an agreement between the applicants and their neighbours (09.02.2017)

Third Party ResponsesThe planning-related comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer.

22 letters of objection from 18 local residents received. Planning grounds for objection:

Unsightly and temporary buildings, caravans, fixed structures and camping – unsuitable for the AONB

Major development within the AONB – exceptional circumstances need to be evidenced

Inappropriate location for commercial activity

Inappropriate use of a SAM and heart of the village Disproportionate to size of village At full capacity would represent an increase in the population of the village

by a third Noise impact to residential properties Too close to residential properties Increased traffic – no assessment of impact submitted Possible harm to highway safety from relocated access Ecological damage Damage to SAM Contrary to local planning policy Business does not make a material contribution to sustainability,

prosperity and wellbeing of the village community Campsite does not provide local employment Campsite does not provide a material contribution to village economy Development represents a change of use from agriculture to use classes

C1, C2, C3 and D1 Enforcement notice served evidencing harm of development No need for campsite - existing campsite and B&Bs within close proximity No restriction on hours of operation is proposed Increased flooding Increased pressure on mains sewage system Implications for further development and encroachment Harm to conservation area Implications of intentional unauthorised development (Ministerial

statement 31.08.2015)

Other non-planning related matters were also raised as were issues relating to the holistic retreat and associated uses (falling outside the application site and being assessed under pending application 15/02005/FUL).

164 letters of support from 161 local residents/businesses received. Planning grounds for support:

Improves vitality of village Transformed site into a beautiful and peaceful space Health and wellbeing benefits of facility Enhances environment Respectful to neighbours Support to local businesses/economy Provides local employment No increase to traffic Campers park on campsite so no issue with parking Compliant with both local and Government policy Appropriate safeguards on operation put in place – published on website

and at point of booking Physical structures well screened by vegetation No harm to conservation area Asset to the village Haven for wildlife Importance of tourism – need for tourist accommodation within the area No noise pollution Works are all reversible Preserved SAM Facilitates access/public enjoyment of SAM Encourages a varied demographic within the village No negative impact on local built environment Protects countryside from development

Active promotion of the AONB In keeping with surrounding landscape Low impact development Camping is modest in character, discrete, well ordered and impeccably

maintained Historic England are supportive Enhances the community Should be supporting rural enterprises Whilst previously objected on the basis of increased traffic, mitigation put

in place by the applicants have overcome issues Conditions on the application would prevent unacceptable intensification in

the future – covenants not required In keeping with the scale and character of Whichford village, the

conservation area and AONB Enhance appreciation of conservation area and AONB Biodiversity enhancement Importance of tourism in attracting investment and vibrancy to leisure

markets and local economies Sensitive to environment Benefits of people holidaying in the UK reduces greenhouse gas emissions

from flights No other camping facilities of this type in Stratford District Location of edge of village minimises impact to neighbours Positive impact on economy of Stratford on Avon District, through

employment, generation of business rates income and in supporting the vibrancy of a local rural community – small businesses form the heart of many rural communities

AONB policy does not restrict all business activity

Other non-planning related matters were also raised as were issues about the holistic centre (falling outside the application site and being assessed under pending application 15/02005/FUL).

5 letters of no representations received. Comments relate to: Causes no harm

7 letters of no objection received. Comments relate to: No adverse impact Positive addition to the area

Petition from change.org with 1,141 signatures. Supporting comments also received. Subject title of the petition:

‘Stop Stratford District Council shutting down Holycombe – a vital small rural business’

Additional petition with 59 signatures. Subject title of the petition: ‘Petition to stop Stratford District Council shutting down all uses of

Holycombe a vital, small business which models Rural Enterprise Planning Policy – in my view the proposed plan, for which planning consent is sought, fully complies with local and national government policy, because it provides jobs and stimulates the local economy by bringing money into the pub, the café and the pottery &c. It is supported by an overwhelming number of local people, which provides support for the application and underscores the importance of the policy’

ConsultationsThe full responses are available in the application file.

Historic EnglandMake the following comments:

Application site includes the SAM known as ‘moated site, 230m west of St Michael’s Church, Whichford’

The site is of national importance because of what its archaeological remains may tell us about the later medieval period of our country’s history

It also survives as a water-filled moat and platform Its presence in the landscape is significant and it contributes to the historic

character of the village of Whichford and the Cotswolds AONB The site was partially excavated in the early 1950s, which revealed the

remains of the footings of stone buildings believed to date back to the 13th century

In the later 1950s the site became a scrap yard for the recycling of cars and other vehicles – this use had a major impact upon the site and, to this day, fragments of cars emerge from the ground

Most of the uses do not have an impact upon the SAM and others have been approved through the scheduled monument consent process

The water-filled moat is maintained in good condition People who visit the site can now appreciate its beauty and its setting

within the landscape Of the activities listed in this application, most are outside the monument

and could be said to have an impact upon its setting The appreciation of the site in its setting will be affected by noise and the

loss of tranquillity but the benefits of people gaining access to the site outweighs this slightly harmful impact

The few structures which will be outside the moat will have only a minor harmful impact upon the setting of the monument

The parking of cars and erecting of tents on the monument will not have a particularly harmful impact upon the significance of the monument

On balance the benefits of seeing the monument well maintained and accessible to visitors outweigh the possible risks caused by the occasional tent or camp fire

Given the likely impact upon the significance of the SAM, this proposal will not be harmful (10.01.2017)

SDC Conservation Listed buildings: The main impact on the setting of nearby listed buildings

is not substantively a visual one, but more dependent on the potential impacts of noise and light spill – potential for adverse harm to their existing tranquil setting. Given the variable nature of the use, this particular harm would not be likely to be anything more than at the lower end of ‘less than substantial’. The impact on the setting of the Grade I listed St Michael’s Church is limited, but rests on issues of views from the SAM and conservation area, potentially views from the church tower into the site, and views from surrounding high ground, as well as impacts of noise and light spill. Such impacts would cause harm, and in the context of the similar contemporary dates of origin of both the church and the SAM, the relationship between the two is historically important. Harm caused is toward the lower end of the ‘less than substantial harm’ spectrum.

SAM: A number of concerns but defer to Historic England’s judgement which is that the harm is limited and outweighed by public benefits. The planning balance should however be left to the decision maker as per

paragraph 134 of the NPPF. However provides the following detailed comments:

- Must have regard to the HE designation entry which states that the SAM is ‘unencumbered by modern development’ – important and is a benchmark against which to assess the harm of the interventions already described

- Any physical intervention below ground, such as fire pits, even though shallow, cause potential harm, including possible damage of the intense heat on the remains beneath

- Introduction of stone circle has potentially compromised below-surface archaeology

- The harms are potentially more damaging to this high status and highly sensitive heritage asset

- Direct impact manifests itself both in physical intervention into the monument and also in the ability to experience it in its ‘unencumbered’ form

- Harm is higher up the ‘less than substantial’ spectrum- At those times of full use, the significance of the site and the ability

to appreciate would be fundamentally compromised- Acknowledge that the level of physical long term harm may be

limited (although repeated use for camping and use of fire pits may be causing cumulative harm over time), but there is clear and demonstrable harm

- In terms of the setting of the SAM, mid-range ‘less than substantial harm’ is caused, principally through compromising the ability to experience its undeveloped form and appearance

- The moat is now far more completely water-filled than at the time of designation – this has a positive impact on interpretation of the site, but if excavation to clear ditches was carried out without the necessary consents, such action may have removed important archaeological evidence

Conservation area: Direct harm and harm to the setting of the conservation area. The main direct harm is the fundamental alteration of this substantial and highly sensitive part of the conservation area from having a tranquil, natural, and physically undeveloped character and appearance to having a camp site character, with all its associated physical impact and range of activities. Even when the use is relatively dormant, there are still residual physical impacts as described. Harm varies from the lower half of ‘less than substantial’ to potentially higher in that spectrum if the site had a large number of camping units in place within this area of the conservation area at any one time. In terms of setting, there would be harm to views into, across and out of the conservation area. Views from higher ground into the conservation area would be harmed through loss of the undeveloped character of this visually highly sensitive part of the conservation area. There are views across the conservation area to the church tower from within the moated area, and these are compromised by the presence of camping units and activities in this area. Similarly, there are views out of the conservation area from this sensitive area which would be compromised by the physical presence and activities associated with camping units. Again, issues of tranquillity, noise, remoteness, and light spill come into play. The level of harm to the significance of the conservation area through impacts on its setting would be at the ‘less than substantial’ level.

Public benefits are acknowledged, as is local support, but the extent to which the cumulative harm should be weighed in the planning balance is for the decision maker to judge. Considerable weight must be afforded to the heritage harm identified above (31.01.2017)

SDC Environmental HealthMakes the following comments:

Essential that the owner takes reasonable steps to protect the neighbouring premises from unreasonable noise

A noise limit would not be appropriate as the noise in question is likely to be highly variable (people noise)

The site should instead have a robust Management Plan, required by condition, to limit noise impact

Campfires should not be permitted (15.02.2017)

Severn Trent WaterNo objection subject to condition (01.02.2017)

Natural EnglandNo objection (16.01.2017)

WCC Fire and RescueNo objection subject to condition (18.01.2017)

WCC EcologyNo representation (25.01.2017)

WCC Highways No objection subject to condition (09.02.2017)

WCC Flood Risk ManagementNo objection subject to condition (05.05.2017)

ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

Principle of Development

The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and Section 70(2) TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a key material planning consideration.

Policy CS.15 of the Core Strategy sets out the distribution of development during the lifetime of the Strategy, through Stratford-upon-Avon, the Main Rural Centres, proposed new settlements, Local Service Villages and all other settlements. The application site falls on the edge of Whichford, an all other settlement location, and as such it is appropriate to assess the application against Policy AS.10.

Part (s) of Policy AS.10 states that small-scale tourism, visitor accommodation and leisure based uses, including sport and recreation, particularly those which would help to provide local employment and support rural services, are acceptable in principle in countryside and village locations.

The application seeks to regularise the use of the site for camping/glamping with associated structures as detailed on plan no. 5485-101 P3. At its maximum capacity, a total of 66 campers/glampers would be occupying the site at any one time.

At times when the site is operating at maximum capacity, this would result in a notable increase in the overall population of the settlement, and a number of third party representations have been received which raise concern on the basis that the development is disproportionate to the size of the settlement.

Notwithstanding this, whether a development is small-scale in the context of part (s) of AS.10 is a matter of fact and degree and in my view the policy does not require an assessment to be made of the scale of the proposal in the context of an existing settlement. Assessing the development in isolation, taking into account the maximum number of campers/glampers, coupled with the extent of physical structures, I am satisfied that the proposal constitutes a small-scale form of tourism and visitor accommodation in line with Policy AS.10.

Policy AS.10 goes onto state that tourism and leisure related schemes will also be assessed against the provisions of Policy CS.24.

Policy CS.24 states that, to be acceptable in principle, tourism and leisure developments should (numbering added):

1. be appropriate to the size and role of the settlement and/or to the specific nature of the location

2. be sensitive to the character of the area and designed to maximise the benefits for the communities affected in terms of job opportunities and support for local services

3. be located in existing or replacement buildings if they are suitable for the purpose, particularly where they are located outside settlements. Where new buildings are required, be provided within or close to a settlement

I will now go through each of these points in turn.

1. Be appropriate to the size and role of the settlement and/or to the specific nature of the location

The application site is located on the edge of the village of Whichford, categorised as an all other settlement within the Core Strategy. A number of third party representations have been received which raise concern with the scale of the operation in light of the size of Whichford.

At full capacity, 66 people could occupy the site; 40 campers and 26 glampers. I consider that at times when the site is operating at maximum capacity, this would result in a notable increase in the overall population of the settlement. However, I anticipate that these peaks of occupation will be transitory and mainly concentrated in summer months. Overall I do not consider that the development would have a significant impact on the settlement and that it is appropriate to the specific nature of the location.

The site is located within the AONB where tourism/visitor accommodation uses should be encouraged in line with key objectives 5 and 7 of the ‘Strategy and Action Plan for Sustainable Tourism in the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 2011-2016’. Key objective 5 is ‘to actively support and encourage tourism businesses to develop and promote environmentally sound practices to improve their competitiveness and act as ambassadors for the AONB’ whilst key objective 7 is ‘to encourage wider access, exploration and quality provision to attract all people’. The Cotswold AONB Management Plan states that this strategy and action plan seeks to ensure that organisations, local people and businesses are working together to protect the area, whilst at the same time increasing opportunities for visitors to discover and enjoy its special qualities.

In light of this, I am satisfied that whilst a number of third party representations have been received with regards to the appropriateness of the development in the context of the size of the existing settlement, the proposal is appropriate to the specific nature of this AONB location in accordance with Policy CS.24 of the Core Strategy.

2. Be sensitive to the character of the area and designed to maximise the benefits for the communities affected in terms of job opportunities and support for local services

Plan no. 5485-101 P3 submitted with the application identifies areas for both campers and glampers within the site. These areas have been informed by the designation of the site as a SAM and views into the site so as to minimise the visual impact of the development. Furthermore, with the exception of the glamping units, the structures which have been erected have been located within the wooded area toward the northeast corner of the site, again limiting the visual prominence of the development.

Supporting information submitted with the application confirms that the campsite provides 11 part-time jobs (2 being for the applicants themselves) which include cleaners and gardeners. In addition, a number of supporting letters have been received from both local businesses (to include Whichford Pottery Ltd, The Straw Kitchen and The Norman Knight) and residents which confirm that the campsite does provide additional trade to local businesses as a result of people staying there.

I am therefore satisfied that the proposal is sensitive to the character of the area and maximises, as far as possible, job opportunities within the locality and support for local services.

3. Be located in existing or replacement buildings if they are suitable for the purpose, particularly where they are located outside settlements. Where new buildings are required, be provided within or close to a settlement

A number of buildings have been erected at the site and the application seeks to regularise the erection of these, as well as the use of the site for camping itself. The application site is located on the edge of Whichford and the majority of buildings which have been erected are confined to the wooded northeast corner of the site, closest to the settlement itself. The largest of these buildings is the wooden camping kitchen and disabled wc/shower which extends to a height of 2.4m, having a footprint of 24sqm. Having regard to the modest size of these buildings and their location within a wooded area of the site, I consider their visual impact to be limited, and therefore their erection to be compliant with this policy. Whilst the boathouse is located adjacent to the west boundary of the site, further from the settlement itself, I remain satisfied that it is located close to the settlement for the purposes of this policy.

I am satisfied that the new buildings which have been erected are suitably located within closest proximity to the built form of the settlement of Whichford. In addition, as a campsite, it would not benefit from permitted development rights and therefore the Authority has control over any further buildings/structures to be erected on site.

Policy CS.24 also states that in areas that are statutorily designated for their natural and cultural heritage qualities, there will be scope for tourist and leisure related developments, subject to appropriate control over their number, form and

location to ensure the particular qualities or features that justify the designation are conserved.

The application site is located within the Cotswold AONB which is designated due its special landscape qualities and scenic beauty. Whilst I will consider the impact of the development on the AONB in detail later in this report (under sub-heading ‘Impact on the Landscape, Character of the Area and Special Landscape Qualities and Scenic Beauty of the AONB’), I am satisfied that, subject to conditions which will ensure appropriate control over the number, form and location of the development (see conditions section of this report), the special landscape qualities and scenic beauty of the AONB would be preserved.

Much of the application site is also covered by a SAM designation which comprises the earthwork and buried remains of a moated site believed to have been built by Reginald Mohun in the early 13th century. Whilst I will consider the impact of the development on the SAM in detail later in this report (under sub-heading ‘Impact on Heritage Assets’), I am satisfied that, subject to conditions which would ensure appropriate control over the number, form and location of the development (see conditions section of this report), the impact on the character, appearance and setting of the SAM is acceptable.

I am therefore satisfied that the development seeking regularisation, subject to appropriate conditions, complies with Policy CS.24 of the Core Strategy.

Policy CS.22 states that opportunities for business development will be provided in the countryside, including farm-based activities, in accordance with Policy AS.10.

Having assessed the development against Policy AS.10 and found it to be compliant with part (s) which provides support for small-scale tourism, visitor accommodation and leisure based uses, I am satisfied that the development accords with Policy CS.22 of the Core Strategy.

Having regard to the above, I consider the development to be acceptable in principle in accordance with Policies CS.15, CS.22, CS.24 and AS.10 of the Core Strategy.

Principle of development in the Cotswolds AONB

The application site is also located within the Cotswold AONB and as such it is appropriate to assess the principle of development against Policy CS.11.

Policy CS.11 states that development proposals in the District involving land either within, or outside but affecting, the Cotswolds AONB should conserve and enhance the special landscape qualities and scenic beauty of the AONB and be consistent with the objectives set out in the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan. It states that those parts of the AONB that lie within the District are defined as ‘tranquil areas’ where the minimisation of noise, traffic congestion and light pollution is a priority.

It goes on to state that large scale development will not be allowed unless exceptional circumstances and public interest are demonstrated in accordance with all the criteria set out in paragraph 116 of the NPPF.

The Cotswold Conservation Board (CCB) sets out policies within their Management Plan and in Position Statements, which includes the document ‘A Strategy and Action Plan for Sustainable Tourism in the Cotswolds Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty 2011-2016’. This document, at key objectives 5 and 7 (detailed above), provides support for tourist development in AONB locations.

With regards to the principle of development in this AONB location, I must first consider whether the proposals should be classed as ‘large scale development’ in line with Policy CS.11 and paragraph 116 of the NPPF (termed ‘major development’ in the NPPF). No response has been received to the consultation sent to the CCB, but in my view, what constitutes ‘large scale development’ is a matter of planning judgement and I will now go on to assess the proposal on this basis.

The Planning Practice Guidance states that ‘whether a proposed development in these designated areas should be treated as major development, to which the policy in paragraph 116 of the Framework applies, will be a matter for the relevant decision taker, taking in account the proposal in question and the local context’.

Having regard to the contents of the PPG, as well as case law on the issue (Aston v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 1936 and R. (Forge Field Society) v Sevenoaks DC [2014] EWHC 1895) and relevant appeal decisions (APP/Y2736/A/13/2197184, APP/D3830/A/13/2198213 and APP/U1105/A/14/2211701), rather than merely applying the definition of major development contained within the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) as amended, I consider that it is appropriate to have regard to the following when assessing whether a proposal is indeed ‘large scale development’:

- how the proposal relates to the local context of the site;- whether the scheme has the potential to have a serious adverse impact on

the natural beauty of the AONB by reason of its scale, character and nature;

- whether there is the capacity to accommodate the development as proposed whilst retaining the defining characteristics of the AONB;

- whether the proposal could reasonably be regarded as ‘large-scale’ when applying a common-sense interpretation of the term;

- whether the development is EIA development.

The application seeks to regularise the use of the site for camping/glamping with associated structures as detailed on plan no. 5485-101 P3.

Whilst the site is located on the edge of the village of Whichford, the buildings which have been erected are located within a small wooded area to the northeast corner of the site and I consider them to be unobtrusive in both scale and design. Whilst the proposal would involve the change of use of approximately 5,280 sqm of land for camping/glamping, the scale, character and nature of the development would not have a serious impact on the natural beauty of the AONB subject to appropriate conditions. In addition, I am satisfied that the site has the capacity to accommodate the development up to the scale proposed (which would be controlled by planning conditions) whilst retaining the defining characteristics of the AONB (further discussed in the ‘Impact on the landscape and character and character of the area and special landscape qualities and scenic beauty of the AONB’ section of the report below). Furthermore, I am satisfied that when applying a common-sense definition of ‘large-scale’, the proposal falls short of this, and, following the issuing of a screening opinion on the 5 January 2017, I am satisfied that the proposal does not constitute EIA development (see ‘EIA development’ section of the report).

Furthermore, whilst the site extends to a total area of 1.76ha, when measured in terms of floor space created, maximum number of people camping/glamping on site at any one time and/or predicted traffic movements, the extent of development is relatively modest and is acceptable subject to appropriate conditions.

Having considered the contents of the PPG, as well as case law on the issue and relevant appeal decisions, I do not consider the proposal to constitute ‘large scale development’ as per Policy CS.11 of the Core Strategy or ‘major development’ as per paragraph 116 of the NPPF.

In coming to this view, I have also had regard to the pending application which seeks to regularise the use of Holycombe House and its curtilage for a holistic retreat and associated uses (15/02005/FUL). I am satisfied that when assessing the cumulative impact of the development proposed under this application and the development proposed under 15/02005/FUL, the proposal does not constitute ‘large scale development’. The proposal does not therefore need to prove exceptional circumstances in the public interest.

I am therefore satisfied that, subject to an assessment of the development on the special landscape qualities and scenic beauty of the AONB, the principle of development within this AONB location is acceptable.

Impact on the Landscape, Character of the Area and Special Landscape Qualities and Scenic Beauty of the AONB

Policy CS.5 expects the landscape character and quality of the District to be maintained by ensuring that development takes place in a manner that minimises and mitigates its impact and, where possible, incorporates measures to enhance the landscape. The cumulative impact of development proposals on the quality of the landscape will be taken into account.

Policy CS.11 states that development proposals in the District involving land either within, or outside but affecting, the Cotswold AONB should conserve and enhance the special landscape qualities and scenic beauty of the AONB and be consistent with the objectives set out in the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan. It goes onto state that those parts of the AONB that lie within the District are defined as ‘tranquil areas’ where the minimisation of noise, traffic congestion and light pollution is a priority.

Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy seeks all forms of development to improve the quality of the public realm and enhance the sense of place, reflecting the character and distinctiveness of the locality.

The site comprises approximately 1.76ha of agricultural land. The areas denoted for camping/glamping equate to an area of 5,280 sqm – approximately one third of the application site. Whilst the application site may extend to an area of 1.76ha, the majority of it, even at full capacity, would remain green and open.

The Cotswold Conservation Board (CCB) categorises the application site as being within the Ironstone Hills and Valleys landscape character type. The CCB Landscape Strategy and Guidelines state that ‘the rural landscape of the Ironstone Hills and Valleys is highly sensitive to large scale developments that would introduce built and urbanising elements to otherwise agricultural areas’ and goes onto state that ‘areas fringing existing villages are the obvious location for

new development. However, these are sensitive to proposals that may disrupt their characteristic cluttered form, or obscure views to older village buildings’.

Of relevance to this application is part 6.1 of the Landscape Strategy and Guidelines which specifically relates to development and expansion of settlements including residential, industrial and leisure uses. The document provides a list of potential landscape implications, strategies and guidelines which I have had regard to in the assessment of this application.

Any structures/buildings which have been erected without the benefit of planning permission have a minimal impact on the landscape and character of the area. They are small in size and have been located within a wooded area to the northeast corner of the site, minimising encroachment of built form within open expanses of countryside.

The application site is visible from the public footpaths to the south of the site and public highway to its north which are both elevated in relation to Whichford village. On the occasions that I have visited the site (January and May 2017) there have not been any tents erected, however, I viewed the site from both the public highways and footpaths within the vicinity of the site. The campsite would be publicly visible. Subject to appropriate controls of the numbers of campers/glampers, I am satisfied that the resultant impact would be acceptable. Due to the topography within the area, the site is not visible from the public footpaths to the east of the site.

I am also aware that the track which lines the southern boundary of the site is used as an informal walking route from the village to the woods to its west. Whilst this footpath is not a public right of way, I have considered the impact of the development on views available from this undefined footpath and, subject to appropriate conditions, the impact would be acceptable.

The structures which do not benefit from planning permission (wooden compost loo, wooden shower shed, wooden flush loo, wooden camping kitchen, wooden extension to yurt, wooden boat house and disabled wc and shower as identified on plan no. 5485-101 P3), are all relatively small structures and are all constructed/finished in timber. With the exception of the glamping units, no additional structures are proposed within the site which have not already been erected.

In my view the structures do not represent incongruous additions to this countryside location and I am satisfied that their presence does not cause significant harm to the landscape character of the settlement edge of Whichford.

I have had regard to the visual impact that would arise if the site were occupied at full capacity. At its absolute maximum, 40 tents could be erected on site at any one time (if 1 person occupied each tent), with the addition of 8 glamping units. Alternatively, 10 ‘small camper vans’ (see definition in conditions section below) could be sited, in addition to 30 tents (if 1 person occupied each small camper van and 1 person occupied each tent), with the addition of 8 glamping units. I consider the resultant impact of this to be acceptable.

Significant tree planting within the site and on its periphery aids in the screening of public views, but I am satisfied that even if this tree planting were to fail, the resultant impact on the landscape and character of the area would be acceptable.

The lawful use of the site in its entirety is for agricultural purposes. I acknowledge that the change to camping/glamping would result in parts of the site, at times,

having a different visual appearance to undeveloped agricultural land. However, subject to appropriate conditions, I am satisfied that the resultant impact on the landscape and character of the area is acceptable.

Subject to the attachment of a condition to ensure that the site is operated in accordance with the submitted Management Plan and a condition to control external lighting at the site, I am satisfied that the development would respect the ‘tranquil area’ of the AONB with the minimisation of noise, traffic congestion and light pollution.

In light of the above, I consider the development to accord with Policies CS.5, CS.11 and CS.9 of the Core Strategy.

Impact on Heritage Assets

Listed BuildingsSection 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that, "In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses."

The Council’s Conservation Officer has been consulted on the application and has advised that the main impact on the setting of nearby listed buildings is not substantively a visual one, but is instead dependent on the potential impacts of noise and light spill causing harm to their existing tranquil setting. With regards to the Grade I listed St Michael’s Church, the impact is considered to be limited, resting on issues of views from the SAM and conservation area, potential views from the church tower into the site, and views from surrounding high ground, and the impacts of noise and light spill. It is concluded that the development causes less than substantial harm at the lower end of the spectrum and I concur with this view.

Policy CS.8 advises that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm must be justified and weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

In my view, the development does provide public benefits in that it supports local businesses within this rural location and I give weight to the significant level of support received in response to the consultation exercise for the application.

Historic England state that seeing the SAM well maintained and accessible to visitors is a public benefit of the scheme. Whilst I do agree and afford this some weight, I do not give it substantial weight as I would argue that the SAM is accessible to paying glampers/campers only and not openly accessible to the public as inferred by Historic England.

Whilst harm has been identified on the lower end of the less than substantial spectrum, nevertheless substantial weight should be ascribed to this harm.

Having given special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, as described above, I am satisfied that the less than substantial harm identified is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal in accordance with Policy CS.8. Subject to appropriate conditions to control the operation of the site,

I am satisfied that the proposal accords with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy.

Conservation AreasSection 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that, “In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area…..special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.”

The Council’s Conservation Officer has also had regard to the impact of the development on the Whichford Conservation Area. Direct harm is identified through the fundamental alteration of this substantial and highly sensitive part of the conservation area from having a tranquil, natural and physically undeveloped character and appearance to having a camp site character, with the associated physical impact and range of activities. The Council’s Conservation Officer concludes that the harm varies from the lower end of the less than substantial spectrum to potentially higher if the site had a large number of camping units in place at any one time.

Additionally, an assessment of the impact of development on views both into and out of the conservation area has been made and consideration has been given to issues of tranquillity, noise, remoteness, and light spill. It is concluded that the level of harm to the significance of the conservation area through impact on its setting would be at the less than substantial level.

I concur with this assessment and agree that the development causes less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. As above, I recognise that a public benefit of the scheme is the support that it offers to local businesses and I am mindful of the significant level of support received in response to the consultation exercise for the application. In addition, I agree with Historic England that the development does ensure that the SAM is maintained and accessible to visitors. In my view, the less than substantial harm that has been identified is outweighed by these public benefits. Appropriate conditions would ensure that the ongoing operation of the site does not result in harm which goes above and beyond that considered to be less than substantial.

Therefore, having paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area, I am satisfied that the development accords with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy.

ArchaeologyMuch of the application site is designated as a SAM which comprises the earthwork and buried remains of a moated site believed to have been built by Reginald Mohun in the early 13th century. An excavation in the western half of the island in the early 1950s uncovered the foundations of stone buildings, believed to date from the early 13th century, and fragments of painted glass, fine quality pottery and stone-lined drains. The remains of a curtain wall of large ironstone blocks was also located along the inner edge of the western moat ditch.

Historic England have been consulted on the application, as has the Council’s Conservation Officer.

Historic England raise no objection to the application and state that, on balance, the benefits of seeing the monument well maintained and accessible to visitors outweigh the possible risks caused by the occasional tent or camp fire. Historic England recommend that, given the likely impact that the proposal has upon the

significance of the ancient monument, they find that it will not be harmful and, from the perspective of the historic environment, cannot see any reason why planning permission should not be granted.

In his consultation response, the Council’s Conservation Officer concludes that the development causes harm higher up the less than substantial spectrum as, at times when the site is in full use, the significance of the site and the ability to appreciate it would be fundamentally compromised. In addition, mid-range less than substantial harm is caused to the setting of the SAM through compromising the ability to experience its undeveloped form and appearance. He however defers to the judgement of Historic England on this issue.

Whilst I concur with the views of the Council’s Conservation Officer, I am mindful that Historic England raise no objection to the development and that some of the uses have already been approved through the scheduled monument consent process. Whilst less than substantial harm has been identified, I consider that the public benefits of the scheme, as identified above, are sufficient to outweigh this harm and therefore that the development accords with Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy. Appropriate conditions would ensure that the ongoing operation of the site does not result in harm which goes above and beyond that considered to be less than substantial.

The Council’s Conservation Officer has advised that the fire pits which have been buried into the SAM should be removed so as to prevent cumulative harm to any buried remains as a result of campfires. The applicants have agreed to this and condition 9 requires the submission of a scheme for the removal of the fire pits to be submitted within 3 months of the date of the permission, with a further 3 months to implement the agreed scheme. I consider that this is necessary to prevent cumulative harm to the SAM.

Impacts on Residential Amenity

Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy requires that occupants of new and neighbouring buildings are protected from unacceptable levels of noise, contamination and pollution, loss of daylight and privacy, and adverse surroundings.

In assessing the impact on residential amenity, I intend to assess the impact of the development in its entirety, both in terms of buildings/structures and uses which do not benefit from formal planning permission.

A number of residential properties are located within close proximity to the application site, including Grays Cottage to its east and nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 Roman Row to its south.

I am satisfied that due to the size and location of the permanent structures which have been erected at the site, they are not causing harm to neighbouring residential amenity by way of overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking. In addition, whilst the glamping structures are not fixed, plan no. 15-5485-100 P3 identifies specific areas where the glamping units could be located. Given their size, design and proposed location, I am satisfied that these units would not cause harm by way of overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking to neighbours.

A number of third party representations have been received which raise concern with noise impacts that arise as a result of the use.

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has been consulted on the application and has advised that because the site is in close proximity to existing residential

properties, it is essential that the owner takes reasonable steps to protect the neighbouring premises from unreasonable noise. He states that a noise limit condition would not be appropriate as the noise in question is likely to be highly variable (people noise), but that a Management Plan should be required by condition to put measures in place to limit the noise impact. I considered it appropriate to seek the submission of this Management Plan prior to determination so that third parties could be consulted on it and have the opportunity to comment.

The Management Plan has been submitted which confirms, amongst other things, the following:

restricted areas for camping and glamping restrictions on the number of campers at any one time (no more than 40) restrictions on the numbers of glampers at any one time (no more than

26) no caravans or large motor homes restrictions on the number of small camper vans (as defined in the

Management Plan) restrictions on the number of glamping units (no more than 8 at any one

time) a log to be kept detailing all those camping/glamping at any one time

which would be available for inspection no children under the age of 12 no groups of more than 5 people no stag or hen parties no dogs fires/BBQs within SAM in baskets provided only no fireworks or Chinese lanterns fire management plan no music, musical instruments or radios operate as a quiet site between 11pm and 7am record of bookings maintained telephone number provided on the Holycombe Holistic Retreat Centre

website to allow for complaints to be logged at any time, to be investigated immediately

no weddings

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has been consulted on it and considers it to be acceptable.

I also satisfied that, subject to a condition requiring that the site is operated in accordance with this Management Plan, the development would not give rise to unacceptable noise or disturbance to neighbouring residential properties.

I am therefore satisfied that the development accords with Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy.

Highways Matters

Policy CS.26 of the Core Strategy states that development will only be permitted if the necessary mitigation is provided against any unacceptable transport impacts which arise directly from that development.

An existing site access toward the southeast corner of the site provides vehicular access to the area currently used for camping/glamping. However, an amended vehicular access is proposed.

County Highways have been consulted on the application and have raised no objection subject to the attachment of a condition to ensure that the amended vehicular access is provided, and existing access closed. Subject to this, I am satisfied that safe and suitable access is provided to the site.

Whilst third parties have raised concern with increased traffic and congestion within the village as a result of the development, I do not consider that the scale of the proposal generates such a level of traffic to be inappropriate. Although a maximum of 66 campers/glampers could reside on site at any one time, due to the nature of the use, arrival and departure times would be staggered, minimising traffic impact on the local highway network.

With regards to parking, given that the numbers of campers/glampers would be restricted by way of condition, I am satisfied that there would be sufficient space alongside the camping/glamping pitches to prevent on-street parking within the vicinity of the site.

I am therefore satisfied that the development accords with Policy CS.26 of the Core Strategy.

Flood Risk and Drainage

Policy CS.4 states that all development proposals will take into account, dependent on their scale, use and location, the predicted impact of climate change on the District’s water environment.

The site is located within Flood Zone 1 but given that the site area exceeds 1 hectare, a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application. The WCC Flood Risk Management team has been consulted on this and no objection is raised. They confirm that the proposals would not result in an increased risk of flooding but that it would involve placing people within a location at risk of surface water flooding. However, subject to the attachment of a condition, the resultant impact on the District’s water environment is considered to be acceptable in accordance with Policy CS.4 of the Core Strategy.

Third party representations have been received which raise concern with the increased pressure on the mains sewage system as a result of the development. Severn Trent Water have been consulted on the application and have raised no objection subject to the attachment of a condition requiring the submission of drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage. I am therefore satisfied that, subject to this condition, the development would be acceptable in this regard.

Ecological Impacts, including on the SSSI (Whichford Wood)

It is the duty of the Authority to have regard to conserving biodiversity, including in relation to living organisms or types of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.

Policy CS.6 states that development will be expected to contribute towards a resilient ecological network throughout the District that supports ecosystems and provides ecological security for wildlife, people, the economy and tourism.

The application site is located outside, but to the northeast/east of Whichford Wood, a SSSI. Policy CS.6 requires that SSSIs be subject to a high degree of

protection and that development proposals should seek to avoid adverse effects on them.

Natural England has been consulted on the application and has raised no objection as it is considered that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on designated sites. The County Ecologist has also been consulted and a response of no representation has been received.

Having regard to the scale and nature of development undertaken at the site, I am satisfied that it has had/is having an acceptable impact on the nearby SSSI and that the biodiversity impacts of the development are acceptable in accordance with Policy CS.6 of the Core Strategy and the NERC Act 2006.

Loss of Agricultural Land

Policy AS.10 of the Core Strategy states that all proposals will be thoroughly assessed against the principles of sustainable development, including the need to seek to avoid the loss of large areas of higher quality agricultural land.

The development of the application site results in the loss of an area of agricultural land. However, this land is not identified as consisting of the best and most versatile agricultural land (land in grades 1, 2 and 3a) and as such I am satisfied that its redevelopment as proposed would not be contrary to Policy AS.10 of the Core Strategy. Furthermore, due to its designation as a SAM, the land would not be ploughed but rather used for grazing. Given the nature of the use seeking regularisation, in that the structures associated with camping/glamping are moveable (with the exception of the structures within the northeast, wooded area of the site), the land could easily revert back to agricultural use when camping/glamping is not taking place. The development does not therefore represent the long term loss of agricultural land.

EIA Screening

An EIA screening request relating to the use of the site for camping and holistic retreat was submitted to the Council under SCREEN/00051. In response, the Council issued a screening opinion on the 6 July 2016 which determined that the Authority held the opinion that ‘The Project’ (which included works described as Element 1 and Element 2 within both the red and blue edged areas on drawing no. 15-5485-100 P2 submitted with the screening request) did constitute development which required an Environmental Impact Assessment. This was against The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (and any subsequent amendments) which were in place at the time of the screening.

For clarity, the two Elements are described below:

Element 1 Change of use of Holycombe House with the Studio and The Lodge and

grounds to a mixed use dwelling, residential study course and holistic retreat business. Additional use of Studio and Lodge accommodation as holiday lets;

Element 2 The use of approximately 4565 square metres of land for camping,

accommodating not more than 40 people camping in tents or small camper vans. Associated vehicles to be parked alongside tents;

Glamping structures accommodating not more than 26 people comprising 2 no. moveable canvas yurts, 2 no. moveable canvas bell tents, an airstream wheeled caravan, a gypsy caravan on wheels, a Showman's living van on wheels and wooden boat house and associated parking areas;

Timber camping facilities including a compost wc, a shower shed, a flush WC, camping kitchen and a disabled WC; and

Alterations to existing access.

In response to this positive screening opinion, the applicant applied to the Secretary of State for a Screening Direction. On the 21 November 2016 the Secretary of State directed that whilst Schedule 2 development, ‘The Project’ was not EIA development within the meaning of the 2011 Regulations.

This application seeks planning permission for the works proposed under Element 2 as described above. The plans which were originally submitted with the application corresponded with those that were considered by the Secretary of State within his Screening Direction (drawing no. 15-5485-100 P2 submitted with both the screening request pending planning application). During the course of the application an amended plan has been submitted to include specific areas for glamping (drawing no. 15-5485-100 P3).

The Secretary of State determined that the development which is the subject of this application constitutes Schedule 2 development as defined by the 2011 regulations. This is because the development falls within the criteria within 12(e) of Schedule 2 (permanent camp sites and caravan sites) with a site area exceeding 1 hectare and located within a sensitive area, in this case the AONB.

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 came into force on the 16 May 2017. However, as per section 76 of these regulations, where screening directions made by the Secretary of State were made or the relevant planning authority or Secretary of State, initiated the making or adoption of such screening opinions or screening directions before the coming into force of the 2017 Regulations, Part 1 (General) and Part 2 (Screening) of the 2011 Regulations (as amended) shall continue to apply.

Having regard to the conclusions reached by the Secretary of State within the Screening Direction, when considering the characteristics of development, location of development and characteristics of potential impact, the proposed development, when taking into account its cumulative impact with Element 1, is not likely to have significant effects on the environment when assessed against the criteria in Schedule 3 enough to trigger the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment.

As such I do not consider that an Environmental Impact Assessment needs to be submitted for the development proposed under application 16/04039/FUL. I have taken this view whilst having regard to the cumulative impact with Element 1 (development proposed under 15/02005/FUL).

All additional information submitted in support of the application since the issuing of the Secretary of State’s Screening Direction has been considered and, having regard to The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended), I do not consider that it changes the Secretary of State’s conclusion stated in his decision of the 21 November 2016 that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

In addition, if it were screened against The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, I would remain of the view that the proposal is not EIA development.

I am therefore satisfied that although ‘The Project’, formed of both Element 1 and Element 2, would constitute Schedule 2 development, an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

Other Matters

Third party representations have been received which state that the serving of an Enforcement Notice confirms that the proposed development causes harm. However, this is on the basis of the site being operated without any conditions to control the day to day operations of the use. Having regard to the assessment contained in this report, I am satisfied that, subject to appropriate conditions, the impact of the development would be acceptable.

A number of third party representations have made reference to the Ministerial Statement dated 31 August 2015 which relates to ‘intentional unauthorised development’ and states that ‘this statement introduces a planning policy to make intentional unauthorised development a material consideration that would be weighed in the determination of planning applications and appeals. This policy applies to all new planning applications and appeals received from 31 August 2015’. This application was received on 16 December 2016 and as such this Ministerial Statement forms a material consideration in the assessment of the application.

The use of the site as a campsite has been operating for a number of years without the benefit of planning permission. Following investigations by the Council’s Enforcement team in 2011, planning application ref. 12/01758/FUL was submitted on the 25 July 2012 to regularise the unauthorised use of the site as a whole, which included the use of Holycombe House as a holistic retreat and camping on land to its south. Whilst this application was granted, following a successful judicial review, the decision was quashed and the application therefore remains pending.

This application was subsequently submitted which seeks to regularise the campsite element only, and I have assessed the appropriateness of considering this element separately to the holistic retreat element (proposed under planning application 15/02005/FUL) above.

I am therefore mindful that whilst the site has operated for a number of years without the benefit of planning permission, there have been pending planning applications with the Council to regularise the use since 25 July 2012.

Whilst I have had regard to the contents of the Ministerial Statement as a material planning consideration, in this instance, I do not consider it to weigh against the proposal to such a degree to justify a refusal of planning permission.

Conditions – temporary permission

I consider that it is appropriate to grant planning permission for a temporary two year period. The Environmental Health team have received no noise complaints relating to the use of the site for camping/glamping since 24 July 2014 and as such, since this date, the applicants have clearly been operating the use in a manner which is sensitive to the amenity of neighbouring residential properties.

However, I consider that a temporary permission is appropriate to ensure that the Local Planning Authority has a period of time in which to assess the effectiveness of the conditions to ensure that the development, when adequately controlled, has an acceptable impact on neighbouring amenity, as well as character and appearance of the locality, conservation area, listed building, Scheduled Ancient Monument, and the special landscape qualities and tranquillity of the AONB. The applicants have agreed to this.

Covenant

The applicants as well as a number of objectors suggested that any forthcoming grant of planning permission should be subject to a legal obligation containing a number of covenants with which the applicants would need to comply.

Paragraph 203 of the NPPF states that planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition.

I am satisfied that the proposed conditions are sufficient to adequately control the use/operation of the site on a day to day basis. Having regard to paragraph 203 of the NPPF, I therefore do not consider that, in this instance, a planning obligation is required.

Conclusions

I consider that the current application should be determined in accordance with the adopted Development Plan. I can identify no material considerations that warrant an alternative approach.

Policy CS.1 states that the Council will take a positive approach to applications that reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF.

I have identified less than substantial harm to the setting of the nearby Grade I listed St Michael’s Church, the Whichford conservation area and its setting as well as the SAM and its setting. Having given this harm considerable importance and weight in the planning balance, I am satisfied that the public benefits, which include support to local services and employment, provision of additional tourist accommodation, and the significant level of support received in response to the consultation exercise , outweigh this harm.

On the basis of the above considerations, I have concluded that the proposal is sustainable development. I therefore consider that the presumption in favour does apply in this case and that Planning Permission should be granted.

RECOMMENDATION

It is therefore recommended that the application be GRANTED subject to the following conditions and notes:

1. This permission shall expire 2 years from the date of this permission and the use hereby approved shall permanently cease by that date. All glamping units, structures and buildings identified on plan no.15-5485-100 P3 shall be removed from the site within 2 months of

camping/glamping uses ceasing within the site and the land shall thereafter be restored to agricultural use in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

2. The camping/glamping operation hereby approved shall inure solely for the benefit of Mr and/or Mrs Birtwell. When the site ceases to be operated by Mr and Mrs Birtwell, the use of the site for camping/glamping shall cease. The lawful use shall thereafter revert to agricultural use and all glamping units, structures and buildings identified on plan nos. 5485-101 P1 and 15-5485-100 P3 shall be removed from the site within 2 months of Mr and/or Mrs Birtwell ceasing to operate the camping/glamping. The land shall thereafter be restored to agricultural use in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3. Notwithstanding the location of moveable structures (14. wooden base for canvas yurt no.01, 16. airstream wheeled caravan, 17. wooden base for canvas yurt no.02, 18. gypsy caravan on wheels, 19. showmans living van on wheels, 20. wooden base for canvas bell tent no.01, 21. wooden base for canvas bell tent no.02), the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and drawings: 15-5485-100 P35485-101 P15485-110 P1

4. There shall be no more than a maximum of 8 glamping pitches at any one time, comprising 4 no canvas yurts/bell tents, 1 no. airstream wheeled caravan, 1 no. gypsy caravan on wheels, 1 no. showmans living van on wheels and 1 no. wooden boat house, with no more than a total of 26 people occupying the glamping pitches at any one time. The glamping pitches shall only be sited within the area identified as ‘Glamping Area’ on plan no. 15-5485-100 P3. The owners/operators of the campsite hereby approved shall maintain an up-to-date register of the number of people occupying glamping pitches, to include their names and main home addresses, which shall be made available within 1 calendar month of a written request by the Local Planning Authority.

5. The 4 no. canvas yurts/bell tents referred to in condition 3 shall have a height of no more than 2.75m, floor area of no more than 26sqm, and shall be finished with cream, green or brown coloured canvas.

6. There shall be no more than a maximum of 40 campers in tents or ‘small camper vans’, of which there shall be no more than 10 small camper vans on site at any one time. ‘Small camper vans’ shall not exceed a weight of 3.5 tons, shall not have twin rear axles and shall not measure more than 6.25m in length, 2.22m in width and 2.77m in height when closed. Camping in tents and small camper vans shall only take place within the two areas annotated as ‘Current Camping Area’ on plan no.15-5485-100 P2. The owners/operators of the campsite hereby approved shall maintain an up-to-date register of the number of people camping on site, to include their names and main home addresses, which shall be made available within 1 calendar month of a written request by the Local Planning Authority.

7. The development hereby approved shall be operated in accordance with the document entitled ‘Management Plan Holycombe Campsite’ dated 15 May 2017.

8. With the exception of any caravans included within the 8 no. defined glamping structures referred to in condition 3. above, no caravans shall be stationed on site at any time.

9. Within 3 months of the date of this permission a scheme for the removal of fire pits within the Scheduled Ancient Monument and making good of the ground after their removal shall be submitted to the local planning authority for their written approval. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented within 3 months of the date of that approval.

10.Within 3 months of the date of this permission, a scheme for the provision of adequate water supplies and fire hydrants, necessary for firefighting purposes at the site, shall be submitted to the local planning authority for their written approval. The approved scheme shall be implemented within 3 months of the date of that approval.

11.Within 3 months of the date of this permission, detailed surface and foul water drainage schemes for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented within 3 months of the date of that approval. The scheme to be submitted shall:a. where appropriate, demonstrate detailed design (plans, network details and calculations) in support of any surface water drainage scheme, including details of any attenuation system, and outfall arrangements. Calculations should demonstrate the performance of the drainage system for a range of return periods and storms durations inclusive of the 1 in 1 year, 1 in 2 year, 1 in 30 year, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 100 year plus climate change return periods;b. include an overland flow routing drawing showing how any surface water flows generated on-site from hard standing surfaces will be intercepted and routed;c. evidence that the proposals will not increase the flood risk to the site and from the site;d. provide a foul water drainage scheme, to include evidence (where appropriate) from Severn Trent Water that there is adequate capacity within their sewerage assets for this development;e. demonstrate the existing surface water flow routes shown on the Environment Agency's Risk of Flooding from Surface Water mapping do not affect the proposed site. This should include a written statement advising how the site will suitably minimise the risk to occupants during a potential flood risk scenario. The proposals should also demonstrate that the existing surface water flow routes are maintained.f. provide a Maintenance Plan giving details on how the entire surface water and foul water systems shall be maintained and managed after completion for the life time of the development. This shall include the contact name and details of the party responsible for the maintenance of all features.

12.Within 3 months of the date of this permission, a specification for the closure of the existing access shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their written approval. The proposed access as detailed on plan 5485-101 P1 shall be created and the existing access closed in accordance with the closure specification approved by the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of that approval.

13.Within 3 months of the date of this permission, details of any external lighting shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their written approval. Any lighting installed within the campsite shall only be installed in accordance with these approved details. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) there shall be no other external lighting within the campsite.

14.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development covered by Part 4, Classes A and B of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out without planning permission granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Notes:1. Paragraph 186/187 NPPF2. For the avoidance of doubt, this consent does not relate to the stone circle

as identified on plan no. 5485-101 P1 and 15-5485-100 P3.

Robert WeeksHEAD OF PLANNING AND HOUSING