Controversial village glamping site bid thrown out due to likely noise disturbance

Church Lane in Wicklewood. Picture: DENISE BRADLEY (Image: Archant)

South Norfolk Council's development management committee also ruled that the proposed 'glamping' site did not have adequate facilities for cars and parking.

The vision to create eight tents on a field near an old agricultural barn caused a row in Wicklewood, where it was proposed, with 29 letters of objection to the plan but 41 letters of support.

In his application, Peter Meacock said the glamping units - designed for two adults and two children - would be 'let so small families can experience our lovely countryside' and 'show their children country life with sheep, hens, pheasants and the other wildlife'.

He also pledged to impose a rule where the site would be quiet in the evenings, so any children present could sleep.

Wicklewood village sign. Picture: DENISE BRADLEY (Image: Archant)

His plans were supported by some in the village near Wymondham, with Albert and Cynthia Mills, of Church Lane, saying: 'We think it would be good for the village to have another small commercial business providing limited employment.

'No doubt the village pub will welcome the potential of some new customers. These points more than outweigh any potential downsides.'

But Wicklewood Parish Council said recent functions held on the site had caused 'significant' noise and light pollution for neighbours.

'The road is totally inadequate to accommodate such volumes of traffic as have been witnessed when functions have been held on this site recently,' it added.

Mr Meacock had planned to hold two charity functions and eight other events during the spring and summer at the site on land near to Church Farm, in Church Lane.

But councillors at the development management committee on Wednesday, December 6 agreed to go along with planning officers' recommendation that the application be refused.

A decision notice said: 'The proposal would generate noise and disturbance through the use of the building for events and traffic generation. The proposal would therefore impact on the residential amenities.

'The application does not incorporate adequate on-site vehicular parking and manoeuvring facilities to the standard required

'The existing access drive is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of its inadequate width and lack of passing provision.

'The development proposal (particularly the intended functions) would therefore lead to congestion on the public highway to the detriment of highway safety.

'Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the county highway and this would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining public highway.'

Mr Meacock now has six months to appeal the decision to the Planning Inspectorate if he wants to.

Alternatively he can resubmit the application with changes in the hope a future planning committee will reach a different decision.