Park authority corrects 22-year-old static caravans planning blunder

A national park authority has corrected a 22-year-old planning blunder, which saw an applicant accidentally granted consent for a static caravan site rather than an intended use for touring caravans and the authority subsequently paying £650,000 to purchase the land.

The Peak District (pic: Catherine Poh Huay Tan, Flickr)
The Peak District (pic: Catherine Poh Huay Tan, Flickr)

In 1998, the Peak District National Park Authority granted consent for what was intended to be a touring caravan site at Brosterfield, near the village of Foolow, in Derbyshire.

The consent included restrictions on the seasonal use of the site to a limited number caravans and tents between certain dates.

However, the inclusion of a line stating that "at any other time" no more than "20 caravans and/or tents" could be located on the site left it open to interpretation.

According to a statement from the council, the permission "was subsequently found to be open to interpretation, and the then owner contested that static homes could be sited there".

The authority said that it challenged this interpretation and its challenge was accepted in the High Court.

However, "that decision was then re-determined by a different planning inspector, and the appeal was allowed and the authority’s case was lost," the statement said.

The authority said it then "accepted the permission could allow the presence of static homes".

However, in 2012, the authority purchased the site for £650,000, "in order to protect the landscape and prevent it becoming an unconditional static caravan site, with the fully disclosed shared intention of reverting it to a touring caravan site."

Since then, it added, it has developed plans "that would allow the location to return to the original intention of a touring caravan site."

Plans approved by the authority this week allow for plans "similar to those proposed in the original intention of the 1998 permission, with modifications including an amended access road modelled on a traditional farm access, and a low-key amenity building", the authority said.

"Static homes will not be permitted on the site," it said.

Recommending approval, planners considered that the proposed development "can be accommodated on the site without harming the scenic beauty of the landscape".

Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Sign up now
Already registered?
Sign in

Join the conversation with PlanningResource on social media

Follow Us:
Planning Jobs