Councillors in the Scottish Borders have rejected plans for a £5 million holiday park near Jedburgh that would have included 40 lodges and created an estimated 18 jobs.
The proposal, submitted by Little Sodbury-based CampbellMac Developments Ltd., sought permission to change the use of agricultural grazing land west of and incorporating Earlshaugh Farm. The development would have included an office, reception building and manager’s accommodation, alongside the holiday lodges.
Scottish Borders Council’s Planning & Building Standards Committee endorsed a recommendation to refuse the application. The decision followed objections from residents and other parties, including 13 formal objections that raised concerns about potential impacts on ecological habitats, trees and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, including the Jedwater woodlands. Other concerns related to site access, road safety and noise. A petition opposing the development was also submitted to the council.
Councillor Marshall Douglas, SNP for Tweeddale East, told the Southern Reporter: “My concerns really revolve around the access and the safe travel routes that don’t appear to be available on that position on the A68, which is an extremely fast road.
“To expect people to walk along the edge of that road or cycle along it is not really on at all. That is the main problem.
“I’d certainly like to encourage this type of development but not in that place. The Borders needs holiday developments and needs investment that we are talking about but this is the wrong place given the state of the road and the lack of potential transport other than cars.”
A report presented to committee members by John Hayward, the council’s chief planning and housing officer, also identified landscape and visual effects as significant considerations. According to the report: “The landscape and visual impacts of the site are acknowledged by SBC’s landscape architect as being localised; however they consider they are of an unacceptable level and have objected in their consultation response.”
The report continued: “It is agreed that the development would give rise to significant adverse impacts to the Teviot Valley SLA, and these impacts are not outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national or local importance, given the relatively modest scale of the proposals,
“The siting of the development is out-of-character with the existing character of the site and surrounding area, and will result in unacceptable landscape and visual impacts, and to the environment.”
The decision follows a longer planning history for the site. Earlshaugh was acquired by its current owners in November 2023, having previously remained within the same farming family for many years. The approximately 33-acre property includes grazing land and traditional farm buildings associated with its agricultural use.
The land is currently used for sheep grazing under a license agreement, while it has also supported cattle and horses in the past.
Plans for holiday accommodation at the site date back to 2020, when a pre-planning application sought advice on changing the land’s use to accommodate holiday lodges. The proposal received support in principle at that stage, but the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led the applicant to defer a full planning application amid uncertainty over tourism demand and the wider economic outlook.
Following the acquisition of the site in 2023, the new owners sought to revive the concept. They commissioned reports and surveys to support a planning application and undertook a 12-week pre-application public consultation before submitting the latest proposal.
For outdoor hospitality operators and developers, the decision highlights the importance of considering transport access, landscape character and environmental constraints alongside the commercial case for a proposed holiday park.
While the council acknowledged the potential for tourism investment, employment and holiday accommodation, committee members concluded that these benefits did not outweigh the identified planning impacts at this particular location.
The outcome also illustrates how an earlier indication of support in principle does not guarantee approval when a subsequent application is assessed against updated surveys, consultation responses and current planning considerations.
The rejection does not necessarily determine the future use of the Earlshaugh site, but any revised holiday park proposal would need to address the reasons cited in the committee’s decision.