- Receive your news directly by 7am – subscribe to our new Morning Mail newsletter at no cost
A luxury £2,800-a-night AirbnbThe mansion was instructed to close down following angry neighbors who claimed their peaceful countryside street had become a hub for bachelor and bachelorette parties.
A six-bedroom countryside home in Aughton, close to Sheffield, was listed online as a ‘perfect party spot’ for up to 22 people, featuring a covered swimming pool, hot tub, and sauna.
Located behind private electric gates and nestled within the South Yorkshire countryside, the large property offered groups ‘relaxation similar to high-end spas’ and ‘all the essentials for an enjoyable getaway’.
However, locals claimed that the luxurious countryside getaway, called Stevenage, had turned into a nightmare—facing issues such as loud music, fireworks, intoxicated shouting, and distressed visitors.
A nearby equestrian center expressed concern over ‘adult materials’ being left outside the premises on multiple occasions.
“This is highly unsuitable in a place where children frequently walk from the school and take riding classes here,” the Smallage Equestrian Centre complained to the local council.
The written complaint also mentioned horses becoming frightened by loud outdoor music and fireworks, along with ‘shouting and intoxicated conduct, frequently involving offensive language’.
The party house has been instructed to cease functioning as a temporary vacation rental following a planning inspector’s support for Rotherham council’s enforcement measures.



The decision requires the company to stop operating permanently within three months.
The council documents mentioned that the property, described as having ‘all modern amenities’ including a ‘high-end pool table,’ had been utilized for short-term rentals since 2022 and was advertised online as a ‘Stag/Hen Party House.’
Issues were initially noted in October of that year, with one account claiming ‘all-night parties’ on weekends, fires close to hay fields, and visitors driving under the influence.
A journal provided to the committee detailed events in April and May 2025, such as loud music and yelling all day, along with an all-male group ‘yelling from noon’.
When local government representatives conducted unscheduled inspections during that summer, staff could hear music playing loudly from within the building and “quite loud and lively” singing and shouting.
On July 25 of the previous year, staff members arrived following a report of excessive noise and observed a group of women dressed in hen-party attire outside the main entrance.
They later mentioned loud music accompanied by “many women shouting and laughing.”
The sound was characterized as ‘severe’ and deemed to qualify as a legal disturbance.
More grievances emerged last September when approximately 30 to 40 individuals were observed in the front yard, “shouting and screaming.”
A trumpet was eventually heard playing — the sound could be detected from 250 meters away.




Denying retrospective planning permission for the house to operate as a vacation rental, Rotherham Council stated last October: ‘The current use of this property places a substantial burden on the resources of both the council and the police.’
It is evident from the enforcement record provided that, following three years of allowing the property to be used without strict oversight and occasional council involvement, the hosts have not demonstrated control over its usage, and undesirable conduct continues to take place.
Owner Nancy Bernard – whose last name is visible on the electric gates – failed in her appeal against the rejected planning application, arguing that the council had ‘reacted excessively to a loud local opponent’.
She mentioned that there had been “only three noise-related complaints” and all the cases were looked into and resolved.
She said to the Daily Mail: “As evident in the original application, a campaign has been initiated by a persistent individual who resides several miles away, opposing this business.”
None of the individuals who provided statements opposing the planning application reside within a mile of the location, and no proof was presented to support their assertions. The sole genuine neighbor has endorsed the application, as you have noticed.
The property does not produce an excessive amount of noise, and all visitors are considerate of the surroundings. The local authority refers to the area as peaceful, although there is a kennel located across the street along with a bustling equestrian center that serves more than 40 clients for horse boarding.
A planning inspector stated in January: ‘Although many visitors would likely respect the surroundings, letting properties to very large groups would certainly raise the chances of noise and make it harder to manage.’
From the details provided, it is clear that the operations at the location have caused a degree of noise and disruption, especially from April 2025, which exceeds what would typically be anticipated from a substantial residential property.
After the appeal, Rotherham Council proceeded with enforcement measures, directing the complex to cease rental activities.
Ms. Bernard challenged that notice—which she recently lost during a hearing by the independent Planning Inspectorate.
She claimed that steps could be taken to handle noise issues, such as restricting the number of visitors to 15 and hiring a site manager.
However, planning inspector Peter Willows stated that only a ‘full stop’ would resolve the ‘violation of planning control’.
Even though the decision was made, the property is still available for booking on Airbnb – with a five-night stay in November costing £14,300.
A review from June mentions: ‘The ideal spot for our bachelor party. Plenty of exciting activities and things to do. The guys enjoyed it. The sleeping arrangements were a bit cramped for 22 men but still workable.’
Another, from April this year, stated: ‘Pad was unwell, it was a fantastic bachelor party’, while another visitor wrote: ‘I have just returned from my Hen Do weekend at this place and WOW is all I can express.’






Leave a comment