PLANS to set up a glamping site on farmland in Aldham have been rejected after a council decided there would be no ‘overriding public benefits’.
A change of use application to place four wooden glamping pods on the Tey Road plot in Aldham was submitted in January.
The land is used for raising sheep, alpacas and rare breed poultry.
The plans have been proposed due to “challenges in the agricultural sector” which have resulted in a “significantly reduced” scale of operations.
The planning statement read: “The proposed development site is a serene countryside enclave located in the rural heart of the borough of Colchester.
“The proposed concept is to offer visitors a quaint luxury retreat away from the buzz of the urban environment, surrounded by farm animals and patchwork landscapes.
“With the low density of this proposal of just four small holiday units, the site will provide a private sanctuary for overnight stays in the neighborhood, with the benefits of central Aldham just a 10 minute walk away.
“The proposed development will provide luxury accommodation for people who enjoy outdoor recreation and the serenity of a countryside getaway with magnificent views.”
But Colchester Council has now rejected the plans.
The denial notice said the plans “would not result in any overriding public benefit”.
He said the proposed land use change “would fail to retain the rural character of the area due to the loss of part of the characteristic agricultural estate”.
He also said there were also potential negative effects on tranquility due to increased activity due to increased traffic movement on and off the motorway and the introduction of a access road and a hard surfaced parking area and an inability to respond to the historic settlement pattern.
He added: ‘As far as can be judged from the plans submitted, the proposal does not provide a reasonable degree of intervisibility between access users and those already on the motorway, which which will constitute a danger for pedestrians and motorists contrary to road safety. ”
The final reason for refusal was for a tree on the site, as the plans were not supported by a tree constraint plan or tree impact assessment.