A proposal for glamping pods near one of the Bath area’s most popular wedding venues has been refused.
Glamping pods are becoming increasingly popular | Library image
A planning application was submitted to Bath & North East Somerset Council last year for four pods to cater for guests attending events at Priston Mill.
An access and six parking spaces were also included in the proposals for land behind 36-37 Farmborough Lane.
The application said visitors to the countryside venue sometimes have functions over a number of days and late at night, but the nearest overnight accommodation is in Bath.
“This proposal offers excellent visitor accommodation, being only a few minutes walking distant away from the Mill, thus avoiding having to travel by car to other overnight accommodation. No other similar accommodation exists in the area.”
Priston Parish Council backed the proposals, saying: “We consider it to be a suitable diversification of the farming activity and helping ensure the survival of this farm. We also consider there will be little impact on the openness of the Green Belt.”
The parish council said that even though far fewer residents now make their living on the land, “farming is still the lifeblood of this rural community”.
“The subject of this application, Pressbarrow Farm, has involved four generations of the Lippiatt family and is an integral part of the village of Priston. The parish council wishes to see Pressbarrow Farm thrive and prosper.”
The parish council added that there are only a small number of Airbnbs and rental properties in Priston, so most guests find accommodation elsewhere, “leading to a high volume of taxi traffic, which is undesirable on our narrow lanes”.
“The parish council understands there is strong support for this proposal from the management at Priston Mill. Other businesses in the village will also benefit. The Ring o’ Bells pub is a certain beneficiary particularly with the contribution to the viability of its restaurant.
“There is also a health and beauty business in the village which will benefit. Both these enterprises are supportive of this project.”
The parish council did suggest conditions should the application be permitted, including increasing the site’s biodiversity by adding hedging around and between the glamping pods, and ensuring all lighting is kept to a minimum.
It also said the village’s existing sewage treatment works may need improving before further development that adds to its load is permitted: “We continue to see problems with the overloading of the works, discharge into the brook and flooding occasions are becoming more often.”
Following the objection from the parish council, which was contrary to B&NES Council planning officers’ recommendation to refuse, the application was referred to the chair and vice-chair of the planning committee.
Vice chair Councillor Paul Crossley (Southdown, Liberal Democrat): said: “Farming diversification is a very interesting issue under planning and policy in this area has some interesting examples around the area.
“I feel that this application merits further debate in public by committee, who may well want to reach a different conclusion to the officer recommendation. Therefore, I consider that this decision should be referred to committee for final decision by the council.”
However, he was overruled by committee chair Councillor Tim Ball (Twerton & Whiteway, Lib Democrat) who said: “This can be delegated as it is in line with council policies.”
In refusing the application, B&NES planning officers said: “The proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Very special circumstances do not exist to outweigh the harm caused by way of inappropriate development.”
They also ruled that the application was not supported by proposals for biodiversity net gain.
