Derbyshire glamping site bid thrown out after noise and anti-social behaviour complaints

The plans, submitted by Barry and Nicola Britland, aimed to build six glamping pods and two amenity blocks at the Racecourse Retreat camping site in Hey Lane, a mile outside Wirksworth.

Mr Britland said the existing campsite facility was to stop and would be replaced with the glamping, to diversify the farm’s business “to make ends meet”.

However, a Derbyshire Dales District Council meeting chose to reject the plans due to the impact on the landscape and on nearby residents.

Mark Gibson, a resident living close to the site, said: “We have had two years of suffering with issues with a pop-up campsite in the same location and I think we have got a good understanding of what will come.

“We are all suffering from noise and light pollution and general disturbance.

“Road safety matters, livestock are being upset, and the anti-social behaviour we have already experienced – throwing stones, verbal abuse, littering and aggressive driving towards pedestrians

“It is already having an impact on our lives without it operating for 365 days a year.”

Ms Andrea Croft, who lives in the surrounding area, said she and her neighbours have been regularly impacted by noise and traffic from the pop-up camping site in place at the Racecourse Retreat.

MORE NEWS: Council step in and save six Derbyshire bus routes with injection of funding

She told the meeting: “We think the applicant will continue to open not just for the eco pods but as a campsite, with events, if planning permission is provided.

“We think the glamping pods are a smokescreen to get a foot in the door and expand the site at a later date.

“The Facebook page for Racehorse Retreats states that they host hen parties, stag dos and large groups. Campers’ reviews on social media comment on the ‘great festival vibes’ of the site.

She said the proposed amenity blocks were well in excess of what is required to serve the proposed facilities.

Ms Croft also said music had been played later than 11pm and alcohol had been on sale at the campsite, under temporary licences.

She said: “The noise from it is making life unbearable for people living in that local area.”

MORE TO READ: Photos show iconic Chesterfield Hotel building reduced to rubble

Mr Britland told the meeting that his family had owned the site since the late 50s, producing 3,000 hay bales a year for animal feed – recently diversifying with pumpkins.

He said: “Like many farmers we are struggling to keep our viability and we need to diversify, so we have been doing camping through permitted development rights for an extra income – just to try and make ends meet.”

Mr Britland confirmed that camping would be removed and that they were willing to either reduce the size of an amenity block or remove one altogether.

He said: “We have not been given a fair chance, not asked for in depth information, basically we just feel like we should have been given more of a chance.

“The officer didn’t seem to want to work with us.

“We are trying to do a high quality six pods which we can be proud of and which would be a pleasure to contribute to the local economy.”

Chris Whitmore, the council’s development manager, said there were both technical and fundamental reasons why officials had recommended the plans should be refused.

He said: “Both technical and fundamental reasons to recommend refusal

“The applicant has mentioned they feel they have been treated unfairly by the district council, but where we have fundamental concerns with a proposal the requirement to engage in a positive and proactive manner is considered to be best served by issuing decisions at the earliest opportunity, because that gives the applicant the right to appeal that decision.

“It is not going to overcome the fundamental issues with the application.”

Mr Whitmore said the proposed location of the glamping pods, on a plateau in clear view from the surrounding area, was not acceptable.

He said the plans would be “detrimental” to residents’ enjoyment of the area and their homes and that there was a lack of information on how they represented ecological value.

Cllr Peter Slack said the scheme would generate a “tremendous” traffic issue.

Cllr Richard FitzHerbert said he had a lot of sympathy for the applicants, saying: “I am sure there is a way forward here for something. Something could and should happen.”

However, he could not back the current scheme.

Cllr David Hughes felt the same way, saying: “I think there is an opportunity there but the present scheme doesn’t work.”

Cllr Neil Buttle was also keen to “find something that works for the applicant and works for us”.

Documents submitted by the applicant had detailed that the plan was to provide 140 camping pitches alongside the proposed glamping pods.

They also detailed that the pods would be available for “short breaks or a weekly or two-weekly basis” but could not be occupied as permanent homes.

The pods would be hexagon-shaped “arctic cabins” and the amenity blocks would contain eight toilets, five showers and two washrooms.