Four glamping pods at Land East Of 23A Boggs Holdings The Boggs Pencaitland, Boggs Holdings

What was proposed

The application sought to change land used for keeping horses into four glamping pods for holiday letting, with associated works.

“Further Report of Handling on Planning Application No. 24/01122/P - Change of use of land for the keeping of horses to the siting of 4 glamping pods for holiday let and associated works (as amended) at Land East Of 23A Boggs Holdings.”

“Planning application reference 24/01122/P was reported to the Planning Committee on 19th August 2025. The application was continued to allow the applicant the opportunity to address Proposal Change of use of land for the keeping of horses to the siting of 4 glamping pods for holiday let and associated works (as amended) SDELL Y”

Officer report

The site and setting

The pods would be arranged in northern and southern areas, with fencing, planting, remote parking and access using the existing track.

“The revised proposal incorporates extensive areas of hedgerow planting to the boundaries and adjoining the pods tree planting is also proposed. As a result of the reduction in number from 6 pods to 4 and the revised landscape planting the visual impact of the proposal on the landscape will be softened further. The revised entrance and parking area will be surrounded by hedgerow and this will visually separate the buildings from the main public viewpoint.”

“The proposal locates 2 pods in the north and 2 pods in the south of the site. Both areas are contained with fences with the fence located 7m from the east boundary and 17m from the south boundary. Each area contains bin storage and fire beater stations. There will be one low level motion sensitive light for each pod. The existing track will be unaltered and there will be a gated access at the north of the track for pedestrian and maintenance access.”

Officer report

Changes to the proposal

The earlier proposal for six pods was revised to four, with greater separation, remote parking, more planting and fencing, and fire measures.

“The Planning Committee indicated at the meeting of 18th August 2025 that they would like the applicant to consider revising the proposal. The committee discussed a number of issues during the debate including the size of the development, the location of the parking, the management arrangements, impact on neighbouring properties and road, relationship to animals in adjoining fields and fire risk.”

“Number of glamping pods reduced from 6 to 4. Units have also been moved 8m further away from the closest neighbouring property to the north-west. Remote parking proposed. A parking area is now proposed close to the new access from the public road. Proposed planting and landscaping has increased in scope and quantity. Additional new fencing has been included in the site design to create a separation buffer to adjacent agricultural land. 7.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding the revised development acceptable in principle and compatible with the landscape, neighbouring uses and road safety subject to conditions.

“This Further Report, which should be read in conjunction with the Report of Handling contained in Appendix A and sets out the assessment against the Development Plan and other material planning considerations. The principle of the proposed land use is considered to be acceptable in this location, and the revised design of the proposal has no unacceptable impact on the landscape character and natural environment.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant supported the amendments, while three speakers opposed the proposal over community, environmental, traffic, drainage, livestock and management concerns.

What members debated

Members discussed access, parking, supervision, noise, fencing, biodiversity, drainage, traffic, livestock, lighting, tourism and whether the amendments resolved local concerns.

“Local Members, Councillors McGuire and Akhtar, did not support the application, and gave views on a number of topics, including: that while such a development could be a positive addition, this was in the wrong location, due to a lack of public transport access, limited local provisions, and poor site access; a lack of confidence over the proposed hedge’s ability to prevent noise nuisance; the lack of occupancy reduction in the amended plans; concerns over parking; the lack…”

“Several Committee members raised concerns about the application, including: the number of questions remaining unanswered; the application being the right proposal in the wrong place; the lack of site management and supervision; instances where the impact on local amenity override the need for economic activity; movement of traffic; the lack of change in the amended application; an ability to respond to issues on site; the likelihood of guests breaking the one-car-per-pod…”

Minutes

How members voted

The amended approval option received five votes, five members voted against, and the Convener used a casting vote for approval with extra conditions.

“The Convener then moved to a roll call vote. Option 1 was the officer’s recommendation to grant consent, and Option 2 was the officer’s recommendation to grant consent, with the two additional conditions proposed by the Convener. The results were as follows:”

“As the result was tied, the Convener confirmed his casting vote was for Option 2.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted for the four glamping pods, subject to conditions controlling use, landscaping, access, charging, management, fencing and lighting.

“The Planning Committee agreed to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:”

“Prior to the glamping site coming into operation details of all external lighting shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The external lighting installed shall accord with the details so approved and no other external lighting shall be installed.”

Minutes