HAMSTERLEY FOREST PLANNING APPLICATION OBJECTION CALLS FOR HALT IN PROCESS
A LAND Law Barrister, hired by the Hamsterley Forest Action Group, has called for a halt to the
planning application process.
Nicola Allan has written a full, legal objection to the application, seeking either for the planning
authority to invalidate the application or pausing it for further information. Forestry England and Go
Ape Adventures have submitted a Masterplan for Hamsterley Forest comprising a replacement
Forestry England Visitor Centre with offices, cafe, classroom, and WCs with additional rationalised
car parking; 70 Forest Holidays cabins with associated infrastructure; a Go Ape high ropes course;
and a change of use of the Nest buildings and land to provide a Forestry England Camping area.
Ms Allan’s letter of objection can be read on the planning application on the Durham County
Council Planning Portal web page (ref: DM/24/02979/FPA/RLAU) and is a public document.
For ease and accuracy, we reproduce it here:
I am instructed by Hamsterley Forest Action Group to submit an objection to the application. This
is a legal objection based on the lack of information relating to key material planning considerations
and the inconsistencies within the information provided.
The lack of information and inconsistencies taken as a whole are so grave that if the Council
proceeded to approve this application (if it was minded to do so) then it is likely to be quashed on
judicial review. This would be on the basis that the Council has failed to take into account relevant
material considerations.
It is plain from the submitted documents that the application is not fit for validation. Statutory
consultees including the Environment Agency, the County Ecologist and the LLFA have raised
fundamental concerns as to the lack of evidence. Therefore I would submit that the most appropriate
action is for the application to be invalidated and the applicant invited to re-submit when the
relevant information is available.
The relates to the lack of accurate reports; including but not limited to Flood Risk Assessment (see
Validation Checklist §32), Surface and Foul Water Scheme (§32), Protected Species (§9) and
Transport and Highways (§35). It is wholly inappropriate and a waste of resources (including the
Council’s) to publicise a planning application which (i) should not have been validated and (ii) does
not as yet accurately represent the proposed development.
The result of this is the plethora of public objections and statutory and public comments based on
a scheme which can never be implemented. As regards the highways impact of the scheme, there are
serious inaccuracies in the Transport Statement, drawings and Travel Plan which are misleading.
For example, the site can only be accessed across land in third party ownership (see A to B on
Location Plan) which is not in the red line and cannot be guaranteed by condition. The use of a
Grampian condition may be appropriate but there is no evidence that the access could be provided in
the statutory time limit of any permission.
Secondly, the applicant relies on data from 2019 (out of date) and 2020 (during the COVID
pandemic) and bus services (Travel Plan 3.3.1) which do not exist. The public highway from the A68
to Hamsterley has been closed for 2 years due to severe subsidence and the Council is on public
record as having no plan to replace it. The Head of Highways has recently confirmed the Council has
“no agreed repair solution” and only £2m in the budget.
Thirdly the developments are inconsistently said to be accessed from Grove Road, Redford Lane
and a “new” access road built without permission. Forestry England has recently confirmed that the
Forest Drive will continue to close at 4pm (winter) and 5pm (summer) so that Grove Road will have to
be used outside these hours. This is not accurately reflected in the Transport Statement or the Travel
Plan.
The lack of care in providing basic information does not instil confidence that the submitted
documents are reliable. The applicant asserts that water will be supplied from a borehole but
provides scant evidence to substantiate this supply. Further the water usage claimed is not clear in
the application.
Other Forest Holidays sites in the UK permit two bookings per week and therefore the hot tubs
alone would consume circa 56m3 of water per week. This gratuitous waste of a natural resource is
contrary to the policies of the Local Plan and the NPPF. On a general sustainability point, whilst
holiday accommodation is permitted in the open countryside in County Durham where it is necessary
to meet identified needs there is no proven localised need for such development in Hamsterley
Forest.
Secondly, there are other policy requirements, including that the scheme “demonstrates clear
opportunities to make its location more sustainable” (policy 8.2(f)). In this case the location is wholly
remote from alternative transport options (properly ignoring the buses which no longer run) and
there are no plans to improve its accessibility.
It would therefore provide a poor level of travel options and be contrary to Policy 8 and 21 which
requires visitor accommodation to provide appropriate, well designed, permeable and direct routes
for walking, cycling and bus access, so that new developments clearly link to existing services and
facilities together with existing routes for the convenience of all users.
These points were reinforced by Inspector Wraight in an appeal decision for holiday lodges near
Beamish (see 13th October 2023 APP3323086). It is important to note that Hamsterley Forest is
Crown Land and managed by Forestry England. FE has statutory duties to manage the nation’s
forests and maintain a supply of timber.
The other statutory duty (dating back to 1968) to provide, arrange or assist in the provision of
tourist, recreational or sporting facilities should not be used to justify overnight accommodation for
the few which will spoil the environment and tranquillity of the forest for the public.
In the circumstances I would contend that the application be invalidated or paused so that the
applicant can address the fundamental concerns raised and all stakeholders including statutory
consultee and the public can properly focus on what the applicant proposes and comment
accordingly.
