Four glamping pods at Side Farm, Cotton Bank, Cotton

What was proposed

The application sought four overnight glamping pods with decking, access works, parking, storage, drainage and associated landscaping.

“SMD/2025/0237 Location Side Farm, Cotton Bank, Cotton, ST10 3DU Proposal Siting of 4 no. glamping pods for overnight guest use, partially- covered external timber decking, associated footpaths, improvements to permeable track, new parking & turning area, secure bicycle storage, recycling/refuse storage, new septic tank and associated works.”

“A new access track would be created leading from the existing access drive, along the western edge of the residential curtilage and lead to a parking area adjacent to the field with six parking bays. There would also be a bin store and covered open cycle store on the edge of the car park. A new “footpath” would be created leading from the car park, then run past the four pods, ending at a field gate on the far side of the site, at the northern boundary.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is an open field in a rural valley beside a narrow private lane and public right of way, near woodland and protected habitats.

“The site is in a rural area within a valley about a mile to the south-west of Whiston village. It is also within the Churnet Valley. It comprises part of an open grass field to the north of Side Farm and which is on the east side of a very long and narrow dead-end private lane, known as Cotton Bank, which also leads to other farms and properties. This is also a Public Right of Way (PROW).”

“Cotton Brook, at the bottom of the valley, 100m to the east of the site, is also covered by Ancient Woodland and SMDC Nature Reserve designations. There is a Site of Biological Importance (SBI), “Upper Cotton Dell”, covering a section of the brook about 100m to the north of the site. There is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), “Bath Pasture”, about half a kilometre to the south-east of the site, further up sloping land on the opposite side of Cotton Brook.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the location was unsustainable, the development would harm the landscape, and ecological information was insufficient.

“The Local Plan, under policies SS10, SS11 and E4 allows sustainable new tourist development in the Churnet Valley. However, due to the remote and fairly isolated location of the site, with poor access to tourist related services and attractions via walking, cycling and public transport, the proposal of four new holiday let pods is not considered to be sustainable and is therefore unacceptable in principle.”

“The proposed structures, due to their form, design and siting would be an incongruous form of development that is out of keeping with the traditional rural character and appearance of the area and together with the associated hard-standing areas and lighting would lead to a visually prominent and intrusive form of a development in an open landscape, visible from public highways and public footpaths.”

Officer report

Public views

More than 30 objections cited traffic, noise, pollution, ecology, landscape and sustainability, while 16 supporters cited tourism and environmental benefits.

“Unsafe and unsuitable access along the private lane to deal with traffic increase • Adjoining lanes also incapable of safely accommodating the traffic increase • The area will be affected by noise from holiday let guests and cars affecting existing residents and wildlife and the peaceful environment in general • Light pollution from headlights of additional cars • Impact on grassland habitats and wildlife • Water demand will increase affecting supply and water pressure to…”

“Pollution of ground, sub-surface pathways and watercourses particularly by hot tub chemicals • Inadequate access as the private lane is narrow • Poor access for walking and cycling and therefore strong reliance on use of the private car • Over-provision of overnight visitor accommodation in the area • The design is out of keeping with the area and would lead to landscape harm…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Speakers included a neighbour, conservation society representative, local resident, ward councillor, supporter, applicant and another local resident.

What members discussed

Members discussed sustainability, the access road, ecological impact, tourism and farm diversification.

“Members discussed the sustainability of the project, the access road to the site, ecological impact, tourism for the area and farm diversity.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application for the reasons and policies in the report, following a proposal and seconder.

“That the application be REFUSED for the reasons and based on the policies contained within the report;”

“In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/in formatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s Decision.”

Minutes