A plan to establish a glamping site in a field inhabited by alpacas has been definitively rejected after an appeal, with concerns about noise from guests being a decisive factor.
Proposal Details and Initial Rejection
The application by Elizabeth Pengelly of Cwtch Glamping Ltd sought to place four shepherd huts and four bell tents, along with a washroom and animal shelter, in a field known as Swallow's Nest on Parc Llettis Road in Hardwick, just south of Abergavenny. The site would have accommodated up to 28 guests and was adjacent to three rural residential properties.
Last year, Monmouthshire County Council's planning committee refused permission, despite planning officers recommending approval. Councillors were particularly concerned about noise impact on the nearest property, Amberleigh House.
Councillor Dale Rooke, representing Chepstow Labour, highlighted the issue: "Tents are naturally not soundproofed so any shenanigans going on inside will be heard in the wider vicinity." Additionally, the committee raised concerns about access via a narrow country lane.
Appeal Outcome
Ms Pengelly appealed to Planning and Environment Decisions Wales, but independent inspector Lowri Hughson-Smith upheld the original decision. While she did not share the committee's highway safety concerns, she agreed that the development would harm the living conditions of Amberleigh House's occupants.
Ms Hughson-Smith, who inspected the site in March 2026, noted that the area "generally benefits from a quiet and tranquil environment" despite some noise from a nearby railway and airfield. She concluded that holidaymakers would likely be active at various times, especially during summer evenings, leading to sporadic pedestrian and vehicle activity, late check-ins, early departures, luggage handling, and raised voices—all occurring very close to Amberleigh House.
Key Factors in the Decision
- Proximity: The parking area would sit between the glamping field and Amberleigh House, with insufficient separation to mitigate noise.
- Ineffective Mitigation: Existing and proposed boundary treatments and bushes were deemed inadequate to meaningfully reduce noise.
- Unenforceable Curfew: Ms Pengelly failed to demonstrate how a proposed curfew could be implemented or enforced.
The inspector emphasized that council planning policies require applicants to show how noise pollution risks would be addressed, ensuring developments preserve acceptable amenity standards for adjacent residents.
