PROPOSAL: Change of use of land to glamping and the erection of four timber glamping pods with associated parking, pathways and groundworks. Erection of a reception cabin and communal sauna building. Re-surfacing of existing site access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

20.13        This application was for change of use of land to glamping and erection of four timber glamping pods with associated parking, pathways and groundwork; erection of a reception cabin and communal sauna building; and resurfacing of existing site access.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 July 2023. 

20.14        The Planning Officer advised that the application sought planning permission for change of use of land to glamping and the erection of four timber glamping pods.  The application required a Committee determination due to an objection from the Parish Council.  The Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representation Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which set out that an updated site location map had been provided as the map at Page No. 75 of the Committee report had been included in error.  The application site was located adjacent to the rural settlement of Shuthonger which was two miles north of Tewkesbury.  The site was located to the rear of the properties which fronted onto the A38 and Shuthonger House, a Grade II listed building, was located to the east of the site.  Since submission of the original scheme, amended plans had been provided to show relocation of the pods to address amenity concerns; increased planting and landscaping; and, inclusion of a water treatment plant to service the pods.  Access to the site would be off the A38 through the archway and, alongside the pods, the proposal included a permeable parking/turning area, recycling/waste, a reception hut and a communal sauna.  One parking bay per pod was proposed with an existing entrance track/road to be improved.  Each guest pod would have an area of private decking and a hot tub.  The pods would be constructed from timber and would have a maximum height of 2.55m; the proposed reception hut would have a total height of 2.5m and the sauna would have a roof height of 2.3m.  In relation to the principle of development, the proposal was in accordance with Policy TOR1 and Policy TOR3 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan in that it was adjacent to a rural settlement, had potential for economic and tourism related benefits to the wider community and would be capable of accommodating additional traffic.  In terms of landscape, the proposal would provide significant new landscaping features when compared to the existing site and the Conservation Officer had no concerns in relation to the impact on Shuthonger House.  In respect of residential amenity, the pods had been repositioned further away following discussions with the Environmental Health Officer; Pod 4 was the closest pod to any residential property and now had a separation distance of approximately 25m to Haulfryn; Pod 4 would have a separation distance of 60m to Shuthonger House; and Pod 1 would have a separation distance of 50m to Shuthonger Manor.  A Noise Management Plan had been submitted and the details within the plan would be secured via a condition.  A lighting plan had also been provided which showed lights at 40cm high, installed to shine downwards with a sensor to ensure they were only on when needed.  Following submission of the amended plans, Officer opinion was that the proposal was acceptable.  All surface and foul water on the site would be controlled via a water treatment plant, with no connection to public sewers, and the Drainage Officer agreed with the proposal in principle, subject to further details which would be secured by condition.  There had been no objections - except from the Parish Council - in relation to archaeology, conservation, heritage, highways, drainage, ecology, environmental health or landscaping.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

20.15        The Chair invited the representative from Twyning Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative indicated that, with regard to Policy TOR2 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, the site was not within the existing settlement boundary and did not respect the character of the area.  He did not intend to repeat further the policy concerns that the Parish Council had already identified in its previous submission but, should Members be minded to refuse the application, he wished to draw attention to a number of matters.  The Planning Officer and consultees had made a case as to why the application should be permitted but had failed to take into account the human aspect of the impact this would have on those living alongside the site.  The proposal would result in four pods, four hot tubs, an office, water treatment works, a car park and refuse collection area, all close to a listed building and a building of historical significance, at the bottom of gardens.  As Members would have seen on the Planning Committee site visit, access via the limited archway was unsuitable for the volume of traffic that would result from the application.  The Parish Council questioned how the construction and operation of this venture could have no, or limited, impact on local residents given its quiet rural location and that it would be a holiday venue where people would be looking to have a good time.  The Noise Management Plan should carry little weight as controlling noise from guests would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.  Residents were entitled to their rural amenity and it was important they could maintain a sense of wellbeing with planning policy dictating this should not be adversely affected.  People should be allowed to enjoy their gardens without interruptions, noise or light pollution and he asked why several families’ way of life should be disrupted by holidaying families in an area that was totally unsuitable for this type of development.  He now understood that the water treatment plant would deal with all water products from the site and looked forward to hearing how that would actually be managed and how the water would drain.  The Parish Council felt this was a self-serving application which, if permitted, would override the concerns of neighbours and was totally inappropriate for this location.

20.16        The Chair invited a local resident speaking against the application to address the Committee.  The local resident expressed the view that the application must be refused on the basis that it involved a substantial loss of residential amenity to the surrounding properties and was therefore contrary to Policy TOR2 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan in relation to self-catering accommodation which required that “the amenity of adjoining residents is not adversely affected”.  Commercial access to the site would greatly detract from the amenity that residents currently enjoyed – amenity had been recognised by the Council when it had permitted a previous owner of The Coach House to build a workshop; that development was permitted “only in conjunction with…the residential enjoyment of the adjoining dwelling house” and the “proximity to adjoining residential properties” had been cited as a reason.  Loss of residential amenity would arise from noise from regular car movements across the Manor forecourt, through the archway and along the drive, and there would be loss of privacy with glampers seeing residents’ gardens.  The sides of the arch and bedrooms above were his freehold and audible disturbance in his house would increase significantly with glampers frequently coming and going.  In his view, regular rumbling of cars beneath his bedrooms would adversely affect his residential amenity.  Furthermore, there was a significant risk of damage to glampers’ vehicles because of the narrowness and low height of the archway.  The Gloucestershire Manual for Streets stated under ‘Private Shared Drives’ that access in the context of the public using them must accord with the design characteristics of a street – the minimum clearance above a public road was 5m yet the arch had a height less than half that and had been designed with modest width.  The restrictions of the archway therefore made regular access by the public unsafe.  Finally, the applicant had an alternative, more direct access from the road to his site by the corner of his house, yet he proposed to use the access that would cause his neighbours more disturbance; in his view, the person seeking to benefit from the development should be the one to bear any detriment created by the access.

20.17        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant advised that he had lived at The Coach House with his family since 2007 and they aimed to create high end luxury accommodation providing a tranquil and peaceful retreat, aimed predominantly at the couples market and he stressed that no mass market, hen/stag parties or group bookings would be allowed.  They had taken professional advice throughout the planning process and had utilised the services of planning consultants, working in conjunction with the Planning department, responding promptly to matters raised and revising plans accordingly.  They were mindful that neighbours wished to minimise any noise and had subsequently proposed a Noise Management Plan.  The applicant pointed out that a key advantage of living on site, approximately 100m away, was that they could ensure the plan was effectively implemented, monitored and maintained and they would be better able to quickly address any matters arising.  In preparing the plans, various styles and numbers of units had been considered including glamping pods, shepherds huts and yurts and they had opted for a smaller number of high quality hand-crafted cabins rather than a larger number of more basic mass produced units which they felt would be more in keeping with the area and the target clientele, thus enhancing the amenity of the location.  In addition, they proposed to use ground screws where possible, thereby avoiding the need for concrete foundations with the further benefit that they could be easily removed and were less damaging to the environment.  With regard to access, there were three driveway entrances to The Coach House, of which, two provided access for residents of Shuthonger Manor and proposed site access from the A38; the third was not in his ownership.  The applicant understood that County Highways raised no objection to the proposals.  The driveway both to the front of Shuthonger Manor, with two access points, and through the archway, formed part of The Coach House property which was under his ownership.  Whilst the residents of Shuthonger Manor and their visitors were free to come and go as they pleased, the Noise Management Plan prohibited vehicle movements of site guests between 2300 hours and 0700 hours.  Any damage to the archway would be a civil matter.  Landscaping would further enhance the development and overall amenity of the site with planting of trees, shrubs and hedges giving greater privacy to neighbours and providing increased habitats for wildlife.  The applicant clarified that no existing trees or shrubs would be removed.  In summary, the development would create a peaceful and tranquil retreat; provide sustainable tourism which respected the character of the countryside; offer a unique glamping experience for which demand was growing; provide potential employment – they anticipated employing two full-time equivalents plus ancillary positions for things such as grounds maintenance; add to the amenity of the location; and contribute to the local economy.

20.18        The Chair invited a local Ward Councillor to address the Committee.  The local Ward Councillor explained he wished to speak against the application on the grounds that it would cause loss of amenity to neighbouring properties due to traffic access and noise.  The access to the site was via a narrow underpass with the living room of a dwelling directly above – the owner of the property already suffered from vibrations and noise when vehicles passed through.  At present, the access was limited only to his neighbours but that would change considerably when traffic using the four pods was introduced.  The local Ward Councillor found it laughable that the traffic management plan stated that holiday makers would only be allowed to use their cars in an emergency after 2300 hours and before 0700 hours and he questioned whether this meant they would be locked out or locked in – either way it could not be enforced and would cause traffic disturbance to local residents.  The Noise Management Plan was also unsatisfactory in stating that those staying at the site should not make noise between those hours and he pointed out that people were on holiday so would inevitably let their hair down which would result in noise escalating.  In addition, the use of reception, provision of a commercial sauna and water treatment as well as individual hot tubs would lead to noise and loss of amenity to residents.  The local Ward Councillor felt the inclusion of traffic and noise management plans demonstrated that the application would cause problems but their unworkable nature meant that the impact of noise and traffic would fail to be mitigated.  In his view, trying to restrict holidaymakers’ actions between certain hours was a joke and residents would not find the consequences funny.  He hoped the Committee would see through the flimsy plans and reject the application.

20.19        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member had noted on the site visit there were some existing glamping pods over the fence from the proposed site and she asked if there had been any noise issues in relation to those.  In terms of parking, she questioned how it was planned to restrict the four spaces to one per pod.  In response, the Planning Officer clarified there were five parking spaces with the idea being there would be two guests per pod who were likely to have one car between them.  In terms of the existing glamping pods, he advised these had been investigated by the Planning Enforcement team earlier this year and the matter had been closed on the basis they were within the owners’ residential curtilage for use by his family only and there was no public access.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused as it would have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity which conflicted with Policies TOR2 and EMP5 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, Policies SD4 and SD14 of the Joint Core Strategy and Policy GD6 of the Twyning Neighbourhood Development Plan.  The proposer of the motion indicated that Members had seen the access and the archway that would be used and would therefore recognise the serious impact the development would have on residents.  He was particularly concerned about how tight the access was, especially for drivers who were not using it on a regular basis.  He noted the package of mitigation measures proposed by the applicant but reiterated that people using the pods would be on holiday and may want to go to Cheltenham or Tewkesbury for a meal or a night out so it was unrealistic to expect them to return before 2300 hours, or to stop overnight use of the hot tubs.  He asked Members to put themselves in the place of residents living above and to the side of the archway who would have people coming through the middle of their house and he reminded them of the Council’s vision to make Tewkesbury Borough “a place where a good quality of life is open to all”; he argued that, if this application was permitted, it would spoil the quality of life of existing residents.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) clarified that the relevant policy in terms of amenity issues was Policy TOR3 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and the proposer of the motion indicated he was happy to amend his proposal to reflect that.

20.20        A Member sought clarification as to the distance of the proposed development from existing properties and whether there was a specified minimum distance.  In response, the Development Management Manager drew attention to Page No. 85, Paragraph 8.36 of the Committee report, which advised that the layout as originally submitted had been considered unacceptable by the Environmental Health Officer due to potential noise disturbance to neighbouring properties to the south of the site and amended plans had subsequently been submitted which moved the pods further from the nearest properties with the closest now at approximately 25m up to 60m, as had been stated by the Planning Officer in his presentation.  There were no hard and fast minimum distances, it was question of looking at the site and its layout.  The hot tubs were at the rear of the pods, away from residential curtilages on the whole and he provided assurance that the combination of distances from properties and the configuration of the site had been taken into account by the Environmental Health Officer when reviewing the proposal.  The Planning Officer advised there would be additional landscaping around each pod and to the boundary.

20.21        In response to a query as to why there was only one electric vehicle charging point, the Planning Officer explained that was what had been offered as part of the application; this had been reviewed by County Highways and was considered acceptable.  In terms of the access, a Member pointed out that on the site visit Members had walked behind the properties and it had appeared there was a different access from that entrance; she asked if that had been explored in terms of this proposal.  The Planning Officer advised that the applicant had confirmed that was a shared access and he did not have sole ownership.  Another Member queried whether the existing garages which were outside of the red line were in the ownership of the applicant and the Planning Officer indicated that he did not believe they were.  On that basis, the Member felt that must also be a shared access as that would be the only way the garages could be reached.  The Legal Adviser indicated that, from a legal point of view, the access with the red line was within the freehold ownership of the applicant – whilst it may be shared, the applicant had control over who used it.  The access to the top with the green line was a shared access but the applicant only had a right to use it.

20.22        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be REFUSED as it would have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity which conflicted with Policies TOR3 and EMP5 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, Policies SD4 and SD14 of the Joint Core Strategy and Policy GD6 of the Twyning Neighbourhood Development Plan.