A proposal for three glamping pods in rural Chorley, Lancashire, has been refused after Chorley Borough Council raised concerns about the development’s impact on the countryside, highway safety, and biodiversity.
The application, submitted for land off Higher House Lane in Heapey, sought permission to install three single-bed glamping pods, each with an associated parking space. The plans also included a gravel access track, landscaping, and fencing.
The proposal was put forward by Rob Mayor, a third-generation farmer, and his wife Katie as part of a farm diversification initiative. The applicants said the accommodation would support rural tourism by providing visitors with a place to stay in a countryside setting.
Planning consultants MWT Planning Ltd supported the application, stating that the development would be “fully compliant with all relevant planning policies and should be approved without delay.” The consultants also argued that the pods would “integrate perfectly into the site and wider open countryside.”
In the planning statement, the applicants described the proposal as “a high quality tourism scheme that will be a welcome boost to the Chorley Borough’s rural economy.” The application was supported by architectural drawings, a biodiversity net gain assessment, and planning documentation outlining how the project was intended to align with local and national policies supporting rural tourism.
According to the Lancashire Telegraph, Chorley Borough Council refused the application on July 28, citing three main reasons.
The first concerned the proposal’s effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside. The council determined that the development would conflict with policies in the Chorley Local Plan and the Central Lancashire Core Strategy.
A spokesman for Chorley Borough Council said: “The proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the countryside.
“The proposal would also conflict with the expectations of the Central Lancashire Rural Development Supplementary Planning Document 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.”
The second reason for refusal related to site access and vehicle movement. According to the council, the application did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that vehicles could safely enter, maneuver within, and exit the site. The council also identified concerns about the potential highway safety and visual effects associated with the proposed access and turning arrangements.
The third issue involved biodiversity net gain (BNG). The council found that the application did not include a planning obligation securing the long-term monitoring required for the proposed biodiversity measures. It also determined that changes to site access had not been adequately addressed in the BNG calculations.
The council’s decision notice stated: “There were no amendments to the scheme, or conditions which could reasonably have been imposed, which could have made the development acceptable.”
For campground and glamping operators considering rural development, the decision illustrates how tourism benefits and farm diversification objectives may need to be supported by detailed evidence on site design, access, and environmental obligations.
While small-scale accommodation can provide an additional revenue stream for agricultural properties, planning authorities may assess the cumulative effects of new structures, access infrastructure, landscaping, and associated site works on the rural landscape.
The application also demonstrates the importance of addressing biodiversity requirements and vehicle movements at the planning stage rather than relying on conditions to resolve outstanding issues after approval. For operators pursuing similar projects, early coordination among planning, highways, ecological, and design professionals may help identify potential barriers before an application is determined.
In this case, Chorley Borough Council concluded that the identified countryside, highway, and biodiversity concerns could not reasonably be resolved through amendments or planning conditions, and the proposed three-pod development was therefore refused on July 28.