Nature Site with Caravans    vs    Caravan Site with Nature.

 

What's the difference?  Quite a lot we think.  The acid test is simple.  When you look at the site do you notice the natural environment first then realise there are some caravans in it or do you see a caravan site with a bit of thought for nature?

​

We'd like to increase our caravan capacity.  With so much of our farm dedicated to mixed broadleaf woodland operations, and already a nature reserve, it makes perfect sense to create a new site for nature which can easily accommodate caravans.  The field in question is adjacent to the CL site and currently grows a limited number of grass species for hay. 

 

Our proposal would greatly  enhance the benefits for our existing wildlife with new woodland, more diverse mixed species grassland and water habitats.  We spent a lot of time and resources on our ecology and have designed the layout around our bats and Cirl Bunting populations.

​

Many thanks to the majority of our locals who have remained neutral on our proposal.  We do also have a minority of local opposition.  It's a shame a lot of the objections appear based on fear of what folks imagine could happen instead of real facts.  It would appear they only see 'caravan site' and image the worse sort you could have, which is nothing like our project.  We've taken the time to read their objections but it is quite obvious that many objectors haven't bothered to read our documentation.

 

I certainly believe such a site for nature would be a great asset for the village, its wildlife and local economies.  It  would be a real shame if the objectors get their way and nature loses.  Or even if nature wins and this actually happens - but they are on record for opposing it. 

 

When settled, we envisage running events with arborists, mycologists, entomologists etc. that would be available for our guests and the wider community.  It's easy to overlook the fact that the two biggest kingdoms for diversity are first insects then fungi - add in spiders, reptiles, amphibians etc and we have a jungle.

​

Since putting in a planning application, we have had some developments regards the site, including potential archaeology which we take very seriously and need more time for consultation.  We have therefore withdrawn the initial application as this has become a whole lot more complex.

​

 

 

Archaeological Protection.

​

We have had the site surveyed for archaeology and have some interesting & exciting results.  A site for nature with pitches will certainly not be destroying any archaeology.  In fact, it would benefit.  It would be integrated into our proposal for protection and on site interpretation for all to see.  However, we may not be able to plant trees if those trees would be sitting on top of something of archaeological interest!

 

We are working alongside Devon County Council Historic Environment to investigate further.    Due to the hostility we have received from some locals on our proposal the archaeological findings will remain in the private domain for now other than to say 'no treasure expected'!

​

​What if we can't create this site for nature?

​

Alternative -  Hay Production but with 60 Day Rule Permitted Development.

​

Keeping the field for hay production alone is not economic in itself but we can look to other means for generating supporting revenue for agriculture under Permitted Development Rights.  It has also been confirmed to us by our local authority that we may, under permitted development rights, have 50 pitches for 60 days without planning permission.  This would include tents and motorhomes but not caravans. 

 

It would not require anything like the level of infrastructure compared to our preferred proposal.  No road entrance enhancement, no facilities building, etc.  We simply have to put in temporary waste and toilet facilities for the 60 days it operates. 

 

Not our first choice of things to happen but, if the site were to remain as hay production, it would likely have to be in conjunction with the 60 day rule and / or events. This is something the planning authority has to take into consideration in any planning application we make going forward

​​

​​

​Agricultural use only - ​Intensive Poultry or Pig Options.

​

If we have to keep to agricultural use without 60-day rule / events support, then intensive poultry farming seems the most economic use. I will also consider pigs in commercial quantity.  Such use would be combined in an arboricultural design.  Any intensive poultry farming will come with high standards of animal welfare and we would prefer free range subject to avian flu restrictions when applied.  Again, not a preferred route as we would rather avoid keeping livestock and stick to a site for nature..

​

Alternative - Government Housing Scheme

​

Since putting in the application we have also been asked to register the site for potential housing as the Government is looking to build 1.5M homes in the near future.  With the road, power lines and water main all accessible this is a potential site and I'm sure the Government wont have to go through the same hoops we do if they want to build on a part of the site. (Archaeology protected)

 

I have registered a section of the site against public highways for this new homes scheme which is running in the background.

​

Why not just add more trees like we have done so far?

The site in question is in a commercial corridor between Totnes and Newton Abbot.  It has provision for road access, High Voltage electricity and trunk main water.  It is likely to be developed at some stage in the forthcoming years.

​

If we add woodland we will spoil the value this land has for future potential development.  We have to be sensible about this which is why we have come up with our proposal.  It puts nature first with a 'tread lightly' development on the land, retains its value and gives an economic return.  It also protects the site from further development into the future.

​

For now, it's watch this space.

 

For our woodland work please see the woodland works page.​​​

​