Lake District planning authority votes for new rules on temporary campsites

An authority has voted to bring in powers to make it more difficult to set up temporary campsites.

Nationally, temporary campsites can be set up very simply, in some cases by sending one email to the local planning authority before being able to implement them.

This is currently the case in the Lake District National Park, but the authority which governs the area, the LDNPA, is now looking at putting a stop to that practice.

Members voted to bring in ‘Article 4’ powers, which removes the ‘permitted development’ rights for temporary campsites and requires planning permission for them.

The LDNPA’s authority meeting on September 30 heard planners had recommended to go to public consultation about bringing them in.

Member of the public, Sarah Wilson, spoke in favour of bringing in Article 4 powers.

Ms Wilson said: “We believe that well-run campsites in the right places are part of the answer to fly camping, and scrutiny is how you get well-run campsites in the right places – and scrutiny protects the campers themselves.”

She asked the authority to commit to beginning the formal process towards getting those powers this autumn.

Leanne Parr, speaking on behalf of Friends of the Lake District, said while they understand the benefits campsites bring, ‘sadly’ a number of them have ‘adverse effects’ on communities, nature and the landscape.

She said residents who live near such sites raised concerns about noise, disturbance, traffic, pollution and more.

Jim Jackson, chair of the authority, said: “Permitted development rights of temporary campsites is a topic we have received a volume of correspondence on over the summer.

“We appreciate that while the current permitted development rights bring definite benefits, in some cases they also brought unintended consequences and challenges.

“As the scale and impact of increasing popularity of temporary campsites became clear this summer, we asked our officer team to urgently prepare a review of scale and impact on our communities, landscape and unique qualities of the Lake District.”

Andrew Smith, head of development management at the LDNPA, said the authority received 47 notifications for temporary campsites over the calendar year, the majority of which will have gone ahead.

Mr Smith added the ‘really high visitor numbers’ of 18 million a year, sites of national and international importance, the particularly rural road network and other factors mean there is a ‘high risk’ of ‘unacceptable adverse impacts’ from the sites, meaning there is justification for an Article 4 direction.

Member Peter Walter asked what the authority would do to facilitate and enable the campsites which have good capacity, are well-run and providing income.

A ‘local development order’ which would then provide certain permitted development rights, but not necessarily the same ones that are currently allowed, was discussed as a solution.

The chair suggested, if the Article 4 rights were passed, it would be accompanied by a proposal to enable the ‘good campsites to continue’.

Phil Dixon asked, if the authority were to go ahead with the measures, would the existing temporary campsites be required to submit planning applications.

Mr Smith said they would need to submit planning applications, adding there would be increased costs with multiple reports needing to be done.

He added: “So I would be surprised if everybody who chooses to operate chose to make a planning application for that.”

Richard Outhwaite asked if the authority’s decision would be open to any challenge or appeal, to which Mr Smith said it could be open to judicial review.

Mark Kidd said how he and his family like to go camping in the Lake District a few times a year, adding how it can be ‘hard to get availability’ but that the temporary sites provide a ‘service people want’.

He added they tend to be ‘a bit cheaper’ than formal ones, so there is an advantage.

But he acknowledged amenity issues, such as the difference 60 or so cars coming out of a field would make, compared to a single tractor, for instance.

Mark Hatton made a motion to postpone the decision to December, as he wanted to take more time looking at the alternatives, adding voting that day on an Article 4 would be ‘premature’.

But no one seconded it and the motion failed.

A vote was then taken on officers’ recommendation to approve the beginning of a consultation into Article 4 powers, which got 15 votes for and one against.