杰里米·克拉克森的吸引力在奥德扩展他的农场er to increase the parking area to his farm has been successful, however, his restaurant on the site has been refused.
The site in Chadlington Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, which is 400 hectares, was aiming to gain planning permission for an extended car park and restaurant.
West Oxfordshire District Council initially rejected the proposals earlier this year, but after an appeal, the car park has been temporarily allowed to extend, but the restaurant failed to gainplanning permissionas it was deemed too “harmful” to the area.
What were Jeremy Clarkson’s plans?
Clarkson initially opened an application to open a restaurant and extend the car park at his farm in Chadlington in Oxfordshire. But his plans were thwarted when these were rejected. He subsequently opened the restaurant in an agricultural barn using a "delightful little loophole" but this met with enforcement action from the council, eventually leading to Clarkson giving up the fight and simply appealing the planning application.
Clarkson hoped to alter the site, which is part of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), by making a temporary change of use of part of an agricultural field measuring 60 metres by 32 metres to provide car parking for adjacent farm shop until January 1 2025.
The farm includes a shop built from stone, a ‘lambing shed’, a café and a restaurant.
The farm and shop are central to an ongoing television series ‘Clarkson’s Farm’ hosted by Amazon Prime, which is in its second season, and has generated a large number of visitors to the site. You can read more onJeremy Clarkson's planning battle with the counciland what we think the loophole he used was in our piece.
Original refusal due to 'impact on local community'
West Oxfordshire District Council initially rejected the plans due to concerns the impact it would have on the local community.
The council ruled that: “The business continues to operate outside the planning permissions granted and advice has been ignored. The activity has also had a significant impact on the local community.”
The council also justified closing the restaurant that was opened under the "delightful little loophole" by stating its "nature, scale [and] siting is unsustainable and incompatible with its countryside location within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty."
The council were also concerned that the car park is unlikely to stay temporary if granted permission so the plans wererefused planning permission.
Chadlington Parish Council also claimed that the proposed car park would not completely solve the issue of cars obstructing the highway due to it still not being big enough to cope with the number of visitors.
They claimed that: “if the application is granted it will not be sufficient to cope with the large numbers of cars at popular times and therefore needs to be seen as part of developing a comprehensive visitor management plan as befitting what has clearly become a major tourist attraction.”
Appeal made due to parking area being insufficient
The appeal was made under section 174 and section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which gives the right to appeal planning decisions and seeks compensation in respect of loss or damage caused or incurred in consequence of the refusal of any consent.
Clarkson also appealed that the farm needed facilities for customers, such as toilets and sufficient parking due to the farm being a commercial success, which the Council conceded.
Clarkson did recognise that parking had disrupted the road and encroached on neighbouring land, but claimed this was all the more reason to grant an extension for the car park.
Restaurant 'resulted in harm' to the area
In a decision issued on June 14, the Planning Inspector granted permission for the car park extension but upheld the rejection for the restaurant.
Planning inspector R J Perrins decided that the parking at the farm was insufficient and ruled: “The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for an extension to existing parking area to formalise temporary parking and provision of new access arrangements.
“The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.”
Perrins also stated: “I will grant planning permission for the change of use of the land to a mixed-use, comprising agriculture, café, farm shop, parking and lavatory facilities, but otherwise I will uphold the notice with a correction and variations and refuse to grant planning permission in respect of the other part of the matters (namely the restaurant use in Lowland Barn).”
The restaurant was ruled to have “resulted in harm” to the local area and was rejected in order to “protect the intrinsic character of the area and landscape; to conserve the natural beauty, scenic beauty and landscape of the AONB.”
