An appeal against the refusal of a glamping development in Merthyr Tydfil has been dismissed due to concerns about flood risk, drainage, and biodiversity.
The original application proposed 10 six-person glamping tents, along with mobile toilet cubicles and a mobile shower block, to be situated on land to the west of Ynysygored Cottages on Aberfan Road, Aberfan.
The Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council rejected the proposal in April 2024, and the applicant subsequently appealed the decision. The appeal was reviewed by planning inspector Zoe Baxter, who upheld the council’s refusal.
Baxter’s decision highlighted several key factors in the dismissal. One of the primary reasons was the site’s location within a flood zone, as indicated by Natural Resources Wales’ flood maps.
The inspector noted that part of the site is in an area with more than a 1% chance of flooding each year, categorizing the proposed development as “highly vulnerable.”
In her decision, Baxter told Herald Wales, “I conclude that the proposed development fails to demonstrate that it would not be harmful to ecological interests or demonstrate a net gain for biodiversity.”
While acknowledging the potential benefits of the development, such as providing low-impact tourism opportunities and contributing to the local economy, Baxter found that these benefits were modest and insufficient to justify the site’s location.
The inspector further pointed out that the site lies outside settlement boundaries, and there was no compelling evidence that the development was necessary for local regeneration efforts or aligned with the local authority’s strategies.
The inspector also raised concerns about the proposal’s compliance with Planning Policy Wales (PPW), particularly regarding the lack of evidence for an effective foul drainage plan.
PPW stipulates that developments in sewered areas should connect to the main sewer if possible. Baxter noted that no proof had been provided to demonstrate that connecting to the main sewer would not be feasible.
Additionally, the development raised issues related to its potential impact on biodiversity. Baxter concluded that the project would likely harm local ecological interests and fail to demonstrate a net gain for biodiversity, which was another factor in the dismissal.
Ultimately, Baxter’s decision reflects a balance of concerns regarding environmental impacts, public health, and the potential benefits of the development.
The inspector determined that the risks posed by flood potential, drainage issues, and harm to biodiversity outweighed the modest economic and community benefits the glamping project might offer.
This decision serves as a key reminder for glamping business owners to carefully evaluate environmental risks, such as flood zones and biodiversity impacts when planning new sites.
For glamping operators, this case emphasizes the need to balance business benefits with environmental responsibility to avoid project delays or refusals.
