The scheme included four luxury yurts and a reception yurt. It was also proposed to use an existing barn which was about 450m away for storage, an office and workshop. The inspector accepted that the proposal would be compatible with the natural beauty of the AONB as the yurts, tents and associated paraphernalia and cars would be imperceptible in distant views. However, he found that they would be alien features in the attractive countryside to those using a footpath.
The inspector was satisfied that nearby houses were far enough away from the access track to ensure that the living conditions of occupants would not be harmed by a moderate increase in traffic. However, he was concerned that noise and lights from cars manoeuvring to park near the barn, which was opposite houses, could result in unacceptable disturbance to occupants. He was also satisfied that the maximum of 24 additional journeys suggested by the appellants would not harm highway safety. Should the number turn out to be significantly greater, however, he was concerned that the access, which was shared with pedestrians, would be unsuitable.
The council’s head of regeneration indicated that research had highlighted a shortage of self catering and camping accommodation in the district and identified market potential for luxury camping accommodation.
The inspector concluded that there was a degree of uncertainty over the level of traffic that would be generated, the car parking that would be required, and the impact that it would have on residential amenity and highway safety. In addition, he had no information regarding the financial viability of the proposal to show that it would be sustainable in the long term. On this basis, he issued a five-year permission to allow a trial run.
Inspector Martin Whitehead; Hearing
