Villagers have won a battle to stop glamping pods from being erected next to a primary school after they raised concerns visitors may photograph and observe children "inappropriately".

Landowner Micheal Bevan hoped to create the upmarket campsite next to Castle Acre Primary School in Back Lane.

He wanted to construct 10 glamping pods for holiday guests wishing to stay in the rural beauty spot, known for its monastic ruins, castle and rolling hills.

An aerial view of the site, situated next to Castle Acre C of E Primary SchoolAn aerial view of the site, situated next to Castle Acre C of E Primary School (Image: Google)

However, the move was frowned upon by several locals, who worried about the close proximity of the site to the school.

It led to 22 people objecting for a range of reasons, including the Diocese of Norwich Education and Academies Trust, which manages the school.

A spokesman for the Trust worried the site would "jeopardise and cause additional risks" to the children, due to increased traffic and issues with safeguarding.

Castle Acre Primary School is directly next to the proposed glamping siteCastle Acre Primary School is directly next to the proposed glamping site (Image: Newsquest)

An "extremely concerned" school staff member also said they were worried about children being photographed, approached by visitors and also that they would be subjected to foul language and bad behaviour.

More than 30 people supported it, arguing it would bring visitors to the village. 

Mr Bevan's application was refused by West Norfolk Council after officers decided it was an inappropriate location that would harm the landscape.

Castle Acre's village signCastle Acre's village sign (Image: Newsquest)

It led Mr Bevan to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate - the government department that presides over planning disputes. He defended his plans, stating he believed he would be able to prevent any problems with noise by installing an acoustic fence, which reduces noise.

But the government official sided with the council and ruled any tourism benefits were outweighed by the "adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area" and "adverse effect on the living conditions of nearby residents due to noise and disturbance".