Millers Field Ambleside (1 Viewer)

[laneside]

According to information received then this coming weekend is the end of this brilliant facility.

We all thought it would happen but many hoped that it would not

 

[lorger]

Sad news that as we have used it a couple of times and planned to do so again.

 

[hilldweller]

Disgraceful.

Victory for control freak morons.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[jezport]

We loved staying there. Its real shame that its closing.

 

[GJH]

We enjoyed the time we stayed there and regret the closure but I suppose it shows the value of doing things properly.

Had a proper planning application been made in the first place it may not have made a difference in the long run but at least the complete evidence on both sides could have been fully aired.

 

[Ridgeway]

What's the best alternative now ?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[pappajohn]

What's the best alternative now ?

Millers field of course :thumb:

A first hand report today, over on RVOC, that Millers field is still open and half a dozen euro vans and an RV are sited.

Broken Link Removed

 

[Ridgeway]

In that case I know where I'm getting wet at Easter.

I will email Graham to see

 

[Moodybrook]

check the date of that post PJ

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Ridgeway]

check the date of that post PJ

It says today.

 

[Moodybrook]

sorry my mistake, was looking at another and made 2+2=5 :Blush:

 

[GJH]

From what I read of the NPA planning process it is unlikely that Miller Field is open as a caravan site. However, it could be that it is still in use as a rally field. I see that the MCC Northern Counties group still has the scheduled meet in May on its web site.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[rolandrat]

Whats happened to Millers Field is a travesty, the reasons for it not being able to provide an occasional aire in the area is a joke. Being able to see parked motorhomes and campervans from a mountain top beggars belief. There's a United Utilities sewerage works next door, nobody has objected to that. It seems to me that the local councillors aren't happy that it's providing somewhere for people to stay and enjoy the surrounding countryside and bringing in some extra income for the local businesses.

 

[scotjimland]

Appeal decision November 2013

Appeal decision
Site visit made on 7 November 2013
by Mike Croft MA DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 15 November 2013

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.5990537&NAME=/Decision..pdf

 

[GJH]

Whats happened to Millers Field is a travesty, the reasons for it not being able to provide an occasional aire in the area is a joke. Being able to see parked motorhomes and campervans from a mountain top beggars belief. There's a United Utilities sewerage works next door, nobody has objected to that. It seems to me that the[HI] local councillors[/HI] aren't happy that it's providing somewhere for people to stay and enjoy the surrounding countryside and bringing in some extra income for the local businesses.

How much does it take to stop people simply assuming that "local councillors" are to blame just because they don't like a decision. As has been amply publicised on past threads about Miller Field, the planning authority is the Lake District National Park Authority, not the local council.

Planning restrictions in National Parks are more strict than elsewhere, for good reasons. Add to that the fact the the aire was set up without planning permission being sought and it isn't difficult to see why the inspector's decision went the way it did

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[movan]

Graham, just cos you got bitten by mosquitos when we went there is no reason to justify its closure.

I will miss it anyway, and know a number of others will... it was so handy for the town and I am sure brought money in..... if anyone knows of another good place to go that is reasonable around there could you let us all know please. I thoroughly enjoyed our weekends there as Funsters. Thank you.

 

[GJH]

Graham, just cos you got bitten by mosquitos when we went there is no reason to justify its closure.

I will miss it anyway, and know a number of others will... it was so handy for the town and I am sure brought money in..... if anyone knows of another good place to go that is reasonable around there could you let us all know please. I thoroughly enjoyed our weekends there as Funsters. Thank you.

I don't disagree Joy, we enjoyed staying there and found it handy as well. Sadly, though, nobody has a right to ignore the planning process. Reading further elsewhere it appears that the reason planning permission was not sought in the first place may have been that it was fairly certain it would be refused. In those circumstances, going ahead and then appealing against a notice was always likely to fail.

 

[keith]

• Just read this great news on the W C forum posted yesterday.
• "Just to update this thread, we stayed here here on bank holiday Monday 31st August .
  We phoned and spoke to Graham and he was very helpful.
  He explained that there has been a campsite open, but this has now shut down and he is back to offering 24 hours parking for £5. Yes it is just a field and some hard standing with an empty point for your toilet "
  
• 54.42898, -2.966
• Anyone still got his phone number so we can confirm this?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Wildman]

you can park but not occupy your van or it becomes a campsite the man is taking the mickey. He needs a licence and not got one how long before he is prosecuted now. He needs a licence for change of use to a carpark if nothing else.

 

[hilldweller]

I have this address on record....

mfmcambles@hotmail.com

 

[Derbyshire wanderer]

'I contacted Graham via text a few weeks ago with a view to stopping on the site for a few days. He replied informing me that he was unable to take our booking because he had been told that "he would" be prosecuted if he continued to take bookings.

Unfortunately I've deleted the text from my phone.'

The above was posted today on WC

If anyone wants to try for sure, Graham's number is 07708 310986.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[keith]

Have tried the email address above to see if he answers, will let you know if he does.

 

[GJH]

you can park but not occupy your van or it becomes a campsite the man is taking the mickey. He needs a licence and not got one how long before he is prosecuted now. He needs a licence for change of use to a carpark if nothing else.

The longer he carries on - and the more motorhomers abet the abuse - the more it will harm the case for any similar facilities in the Lake District National Park as it is bound to harden attitudes against allowing them.

 

[Paddywack]

The longer he carries on - and the more motorhomers abet the abuse - the more it will harm the case for any similar facilities in the Lake District National Park as it is bound to harden attitudes against allowing them.

I don't think this has anything to do with the attitudes and opinions of the National Park, the site was turned down on the basis of visual intrusion, despite sitting next a massive car park - the one that charges mh for four bays. From the locals perspective this had more to do with commercial interests of those on the NP board, allegedly.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

I don't think this has anything to do with the attitudes and opinions of the National Park, the site was turned down on the basis of visual intrusion, despite sitting next a massive car park - the one that charges mh for four bays. From the locals perspective this had more to do with commercial interests of those on the NP board, allegedly.

Commercial interests? So why was no complaints procedure entered into then? Why was no action taken against the board members? Lack of evidence perhaps?
If there was anything untoward then why did it not come out when the appeal against the enforcement notice was dismissed by The Planning Inspectorate?

The facts of the matter are available for anyone to read here. Miller Field was a great place to stay from our point of view but the land owner went about the process in totally the wrong way.

 

[peter marshall]

We were up there in July at the Rugby club C& CC rally. Millers field was still closed. Pete

 

[Paddywack]

Graham, if you want to know how NP boards work have a look at the potash application for NY moors, conflicts of interests aplenty and no one held to account. In the Millers Field case the links are more complicated - family, estates and blind trusts, very difficult to prove, but given that even a blatant one like the potash case gets through I wouldn't hold my breath.

NP boards across the country tend to be made up of the landed gentry and the CLA crowd, not very accountable.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[dbnosey]

Just as a matter of interest, I was told by Graham that all the land that the car park and millers field occupies is owned by the same chap. The Council lease and administer the Car Park bit.
There is a lot of nimbi-sum in that location. Travelodge wanted to move and develope in an old disused laundry which has been left in dilapidation but there was so many objections it was a no go, so reopening Millers I think will be very difficult without direct action.
Colin

 

[GJH]

Graham, if you want to know how NP boards work have a look at the potash application for NY moors, conflicts of interests aplenty and no one held to account. In the Millers Field case the links are more complicated - family, estates and blind trusts, very difficult to prove, but given that even a blatant one like the potash case gets through I wouldn't hold my breath.

NP boards across the country tend to be made up of the landed gentry and the CLA crowd, not very accountable.

Actually I do have real experience of how NP boards approach planning matters, so I'm not just relying on rumours put about by people who don't like decisions.

It doesn't matter what potential conflicts of interest might be invented by conspiracy theorists, the Miller Field case was looked into by an independent inspector and he made his decision based on facts, not vested interests. If anyone believes that is not the case then they should sue the Planning Inspectorate.

As regards the potash mine (I assume you mean the one approved at the end of June) the decision was the result of four years of discussions and was supported by the majority of the local councils and local people. The only connection it has with Miller Field is that both were properly decided on their merits.