Plans for glamping holiday pods near Langham and Wing Hollow refused by Rutland County Council

Plans for holiday pods have been rejected over concerns their open countryside location would be unsustainable.

Landowners at Rocott Lodge Barn near Langham and Station Road at Wing Hollow both applied for planning permission to build glamping pods for holidaymakers and tourists.

The land at Rocott Lodge Barn is currently used as a paddock, which owner Mr K Wellman-Smith wanted to turn into a glamping site with three one-bedroom pods.

He believes the site, which is four miles from Oakham, is ideally located for access to existing services and facilities within Rutland as well as places of interest and tourist destinations.

But council officers disagreed. When refusing the application they said: “The site is located in the open countryside in an unsustainable location and the proposed accommodation would not be well related to any existing tourism attraction or other services and facilities.

“The proposal would result in significant travel to and from the site, relying heavily on private transport.”

Despite the highways department not voicing any objections, planning officers argued it’s not well-related to visitor attractions and would result in a significant travel to and from the site.

An application in 2017 to convert the adjacent barn at Rocott Lodge into five holiday lets was refused on similar grounds.

Find out about planning applications that affect you at the Public Notice Portal.

Plans for one holiday pod with decking on land in Wing Hollow were also rejected for the second time by Rutland County Council.

Owner Fiona Cox made a similar application last year, but it was refused due to ‘the impact on the character of the area and a lack of information in respect of biodiversity impacts’.

In a bid to address the problems a new application was submitted with the pod in a slightly different location.

But planning officers still feel the appearance of the glamping pod along with the raised decking access and parking areas, would have a ‘detrimental impact on the character of the open rolling landscape’.

It was also argued that the site is in open countryside, remote from services and facilities.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments.