A controversial proposal to put four log cabins into the South Derbyshire countryside has been axed for the second time.
Protesters against the development, located to the rear of 45 to 59 Manchester Lane, Hartshorne, had said the move would have been an intrusion into the countryside and should be rejected.
Members of South Derbyshire District Council’s planning committee chose to agree with the protesters calling the plan an 'alien pattern of development and an unwarranted intrusion into the landscape'.
It is the second time that Hartshorne Parish Council and Hartshorne Village Residents' Association have been successful in fending off the development. The first application was refused last year on the same grounds.
If built, the one-acre site would have provided "much-needed" tourism accommodation for nearby National Forest attractions, the applicant George Dunnicliff had said.
But campaigners said National Forest attractions were a fair distance from Hartshorne.
They also felt the log cabins would attract hen and stag parties leading to concerns over antisocial behaviour at a purely residential site.
The district council's planning officers had recommended that the plans be approved by councillors at the meeting held last week. In a report they said the applicant had not considered the neighbours and that woodland planting near these homes may not be appropriate. But they said the plan must be recognised as part of the 'ethos' of encouraging tourist accommodation in the National Forest'.
They added that the occupants of the lodges would be 'transitory' and not likely to expect the same standard of living as if they were permanent residential homes.
The parish council and Hartshorne Village Residents' Association objected to the proposals, which also attracted an online petition with more than 190 signatures and 12 formal objections.
The association described the scheme as an "alien invasion".
They also claimed the log cabins could cater for up to 32 people at a time, causing noise and disruption.
However, planning officers said various conditions could be imposed which would require that hot hubs are vacated by 11pm each night. But it was a condition residents felt would not be adhered to by some occupants.
The fact that Manchester Lane is narrow was also a concern as it has been the scene of several accidents – one in December, last year. They also added that there were no amenities in Hartshorne apart from a few pubs.
Mr Dunnicliff originally said the four holiday cabins would be sited 'within a landscaped setting'.
He added that careful consideration had been given to the layout to ensure that the proposals would provide a sustainable form of development which would not have a harmful impact upon either the existing landscape features or the character of the area.
However, members of the planning committee chose not to agree and in refusing the application, said: "Notwithstanding the submitted details, the proposed development would constitute an alien pattern of development and an unwarranted intrusion into the landscape and countryside to the east/northeast of the development along Manchester Lane and necessitating the felling of [protected] trees to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area."
It is not yet known if Mr Dunnicliff will appeal the decision.
