PLANS to create a glamping site on farmland in Aldham have been rejected after a council ruled there would not be any “overriding public benefits”.

An application for a change of use to allow four wooden glamping pods to be placed on the land in Tey Road in Aldham were submitted in January.

The land is used for farming on sheep, alpacas and rare breed poultry.

Plans were proposed due to “challenges in the farming sector” which have meant the scale of operation has “largely reduced.”

The planning statement said: “The proposed development site is a serene countryside enclave situated in the rural heart of Colchester borough.

“The proposed concept is to provide visitors with a picturesque 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 offer a private sanctuary for overnight stays in the district, with the benefits of the centre of Aldham just 10 minutes walking distance.

“The proposed development will offer luxury accommodation for people who enjoy outdoor leisure pursuits and the serenity of a countryside getaway with a marvellous view.”

Read more:

But Colchester Council has now rejected the plans.

The refusal notice said the plans would “not result in any overriding public benefits”.

It said the proposal for the change of use of the land “would fail to conserve the rural character of the area through the loss of part of characteristic agricultural field”.

It said there was also potential adverse impacts on tranquillity by way of increased activities through increased traffic movements both on and off the highway and the introduction of hard surfaced access road and parking area and a failure to respond to historic settlement pattern.

It added: “As far as can be determined from the submitted plans, the proposal fails to provide a reasonable degree of intervisibility between users of the access and those already within the highway which will constitute a danger to pedestrians and motorists contrary to highway safety.”

The final reason for refusal related to a tree on site as the plans has not been supported by a tree constraints plan or Arboricultural Impact Assessment.