Fox & Barrel pub refused permission to build glamping pods

The Fox & Barrel in Cotebrook submitted a planning application to Cheshire West and Chester Council looking to install 10 glamping pods at the rear of the pub.

However, the council has now decided to reject the plans.

In a report recommending the decision, case officer Edward Shepherd wrote: “The proposal would be located within the open countryside site and be of a scale which dominates the wider area, is visually intrusive and causes harm to the open countryside.”

If approved, 10 glamping pods could have been built at the rear of the property (Image: Google Maps)

According to the plans, each glamping pod would have a covered terrace area, an open plan lounge, kitchen and dining area, a bathroom and a bedroom.

Separate storage and ground source plant pods would also be installed, if the plans were approved.

A planning statement submitted by Fisher German on behalf of the pub read: "This will be an excellent development scheme for not only the Fox and Barrel but also the wider community of Cotebrook and even further afield to those that will be visiting in the future.

"The visitor pods will allow the pub to function at a much higher capacity whilst continuing to deliver its excellent customer experience year-round, irrespective of weather.

"The provision of the visitor pods will allow the pub to be involved in attracting interest into the village as well as increasing the custom to the pub. 

"The piece of land where the visitor pods will go is currently not used for anything, therefore the pods will give the land more economic value and purpose."

However, the report outlining the refusal stated that the development “does not require” a countryside location and would primarily be accessible by car.

It also states there is limited economic benefits in relation to the creation of jobs and spending.

“These would not outweigh the harm to the open countryside and sustainability,” it adds.

“Overall, the proposal would not comprise sustainable development as there are not environmental, economic and social benefits which would outweigh the identified harm.

“The proposal has also provided insufficient information to establish the likely impacts on habitats and protected species and how they can be avoided or mitigated.”