Agenda item

Use of land as ‘glamping site’ with 6 glamping pods with decking, alterations to access to Moor Lane with formation of access road and parking areas, change of use of stables to form gym and Class E shop and café, installation of package treatment system - Moorgate Farm, Moor Lane, Netherthong, Holmfirth.

Ward(s) affected: Holme Valley South

Contact: William Simcock, Planning Services

Application refused.

The Committee considered Application 2022/9261 for the use of land as a ‘glamping site’ with 6 glamping pods with decking, alterations to access to Moor Lane with formation of access road and parking areas, change of use of stables to form gym and Class E shop and café, and installation of package treatment system at Moorgate Farm, Moor Lane, Netherthong, Holmfirth.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused on the grounds that;

1. The proposed development is inappropriate in principle within the Green Belt since buildings for holiday or visitor accommodation do not fall within the definition of “appropriate facilities for outdoor recreation” nor any of the other categories listed in paragraphs 149-150 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It is considered that the development would cause significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt and undermine the purpose of including land within it as set out in paragraph 138(c) of the NPPF in that it would represent an encroachment of built development into open countryside. Very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm the development would cause to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness or other harm have not been demonstrated by the applicant. The development is therefore contrary to Chapter 13 of the NPPF, Policy 10 of the Kirklees Local Plan and Policy 7 of the Holme Valley Neighbourhood Development Plan.

2. The proposed visibility splay to the west crosses land that is outside the red line boundary and appears to be in third party ownership. It is therefore not possible to guarantee that a sufficient visibility splay to the west can be provided or retained in perpetuity. Consequently, the use of the access by the proposed development would give rise to a material increase in risks to highway users, and therefore due to impacts upon highway safety, the proposal is contrary to the aims of Policy LP21 of the Kirklees Local Plan and Policy 11(4&5) of the Holme Valley Neighbourhood Development Plan.

3. The application has not been supported by an Arboricultural Survey or Impact Assessment formally appraising the value of the trees on site, explaining how they would be affected and what mitigation or compensation could be undertaken. The provision of visibility splays as shown on drawing 220430-01-11 would appear to require the removal of a number of mature trees that are the subject an Area Tree Preservation Order, reference 66/92/g1. The development therefore does not accord with the aims of Policy LP33 the Kirklees Local Plan or those of Holme Valley Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy 2(3) which state that any significant trees should be retained.

4. The Kirklees Biodiversity Net Gain Technical Advice Note requires that a 10% net gain should be achieved on sites over 0.5ha. The proposal has not been supported by a baseline ecological survey or impact assessment. It is therefore not possible to assess the value of any existing semi-natural habitat that would be lost (including, but not restricted to, mature trees) nor establish how the appropriate biodiversity net gain would be achieved. The proposal therefore does not accord with the aims of Policy LP30(ii) of the Kirklees Local Plan and Policy 13 of the Holme Valley Neighbourhood Development Plan.

A recorded vote was taken, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 42 (5), as follows;

For: Councillors Anwar, Gregg, S Hall, Pattison, A Pinnock And Sokhal (6 votes)

Against: Councillor Thompson (1 vote)