AN APPEAL against refusal of plans for glamping tents in Merthyr Tydfil has been dismissed due to concerns over flood risk, drainage, and biodiversity.
The application was for 10 six-person glamping tents, mobile toilet cubicles, and a mobile shower block on land to the west of Ynysygored Cottages in Aberfan Road, Aberfan.
It was refused by the council via delegated decision in April last year and an appeal from the applicant against that refusal has been dismissed by a planning inspector.
The reasons for dismissing the appeal covered flood risk, foul drainage, and biodiversity.
In reaching her decision inspector Zoe Baxter points out that the site lies in a flood zone according to Natural Resources Wales’ flood maps including a section where there is a more than one in 100 chance of flooding in a given year.
It was therefore considered a “highly vulnerable development.”
The inspector said the development is outside settlement limits and would be a low-impact tourism development that could be justified in a countryside location but there was no substantive evidence that it was “necessary to assist, or be part of, a local authority regeneration initiative or a local authority strategy required to sustain an existing settlement”.
She also said that while the proposal would create some employment opportunities and contribute to the local economy these benefits would be modest. She concluded that the location of the development “would not be acceptable.”
The inspector also said that Planning Policy Wales (PPW) states that development proposals in sewered areas must connect foul drainage to the main sewer where possible and no evidence had been presented that connection to the main sewer would not be feasible.
She said no evidence had been provided relating to a foul drainage plan, pollution prevention measures, or minimisation of environmental impacts although they are mentioned.
The inspector also said the nature of the proposed accommodation would not be a means of addressing any housing shortage and the economic and community benefits arising from the modest scale of the proposal would not be sufficient to outweigh the potential harm to biodiversity interests.
She said these considerations would also not justify the harm from flood risk and to the environment and public health.
She said: “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.”
