Powys County Council have refused to grant planning permission to a proposal to build a number of holiday pods on a piece of land near Newtown.

Plans to add holiday pods, as well as the removal of a stable block, erection of a storage building and the installation of package treatment plan at land adjacent to Oakside, New Mills, near Newtown, have been refused by Powys Council.

Comments from the area’s community council noted “serious concerns” with the proposal, which had already been reduced from three holiday pods to two following earlier consultations, with the application first being submitted in July 2024.

The design and access statement of the proposal noted that the applicant owns the site in question, which “presently has equine use, in that there is a stable block and exercise arena” but wishes “to change the use of the land for the siting of Holiday Pods” and that their occupancy would be “generally be in the summer months”.

OTHER NEWS:

In reviewing the plans, Tregynon Community council said: “The plans constitute overdevelopment of a limited and confined space.

“There are serious concerns about drainage into an open ditch and about surface water runoff.

“Parking allowance for all three proposed pods is unclear on the plans.

“The proposed hedges will obstruct the view to and from the site and impede visibility for motorists.

“The visibility splay at the junction will be inadequate and dangerous. Furthermore, land at that junction is not in the ownership of the applicant.

“The councillors also have serious concerns about work already undertaken before any permission was granted.”

Despite viewing a revised version of the proposal, councillors said that they “welcome the reduced number of units” but “their original objections still stand”.

In a delegated report on the proposal, Powys council concluded: “The comments from the Local Member, Community Council and within the public responses have been carefully received.

“Whilst some of the concerns could be overcome using conditions or are not matters which are considered to warrant refusal of the application, the impact upon highway safety and the submission of insufficient information in relation to the proposed foul drainage have not been adequately addressed. Therefore, the recommendation is one of refusal