Farm’s ‘glamping’ site rejected by council
The pods, which would have accommodated up to four people, come fully equipped with a wood-fired hot tub and decking
By Latifa Yedroudj, Junior Local Democracy Reporter
A Nottinghamshire farmer’s plan to set up a glamping site to help support crop and animal income hit by bad weather has been rejected by council planners.
Applicant Joe Howard applied to build eight two-person pods on family farm land at Hodsock Lodge Farm, Woodhouse Lane, near Langold, about four miles from Worksop.
The plan submitted to Bassetlaw District Council involved ‘escape pods’ spread over 0.8 hectares of land – about the size of two football pitches.
Each pod would have had room for four people and come with a wood-fired hot tub and decking.
The proposed year-round ‘glamping’ site would provide an “additional income” to the family-run farm after “extreme” weather affected crops and animal produce, plans say.
But council officers refused the plans on Tuesday (February 11).
The authority raised concerns over the site causing “substantial harm” and “unjustified domestication” to the rural countryside.
A notice on the decision reads: “The overall principle of a tourism development in this location is not considered acceptable, primarily due to the harmful and unjustified scale of development proposed.
“Insufficient information regarding the need for farm diversification has been
supplied, or how the proposal would be either ancillary or complimentary to the primary farming enterprise.
“Given the substantial scale of the proposed development, in a rural
setting, the proposal would result in an unjustified domestication harmful to the wider countryside, which is unacceptable in principle. ”
The highways authority, Nottinghamshire County Council, raised concerns over the safety of vehicles and motorists.
Objecting to the plan, the county authority said it would present an “unacceptable impact on highway safety”,
Bassetlaw District Council also said the applicant did not provide enough information to make sure the site would not cause “unacceptable harm” to protected species.
The plans received several objections from residents, who raised concerns over increased traffic.
Others said the development would be “detrimental to the environment” and impact “indigenous flora and fauna”.
Explore more
