Business Owner Fights Back Against Council
Stephen Cook, a former pig farmer turned heavy machinery storage and servicing business owner, finds himself in a battle with the Canterbury City Council over a planning dispute. Despite facing rejection of his retrospective planning application to change the use of his site from agricultural to industrial or commercial, Cook remains defiant in his stance. The council’s decision to uphold the rejection on appeal has not deterred Cook, who vows to continue trading even if faced with enforcement action.
Cook’s decision to transition from animal rearing to storing and servicing heavy machinery at Chaucer Farm in Sturry was prompted by a significant increase in costs during the Covid pandemic. The surge in prices of animal feed, particularly soya, which doubled from £250 to £450 per tonne, made it unsustainable for him to continue his pig farming business. In response to these challenges, Cook sought to diversify his operations to stay afloat.
Challenges with Planning Permission
The move to repurpose buildings on Chaucer Farm for industrial and commercial use required a change of use from agricultural to industrial or commercial. However, a retrospective planning application submitted by Cook in October of the previous year was met with rejection by the city council. The council cited concerns that the proposed development would result in general industrial units on land not allocated for business use.
Despite Cook’s appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, the decision of the local authority was upheld last month. The Planning Inspectorate deemed the site in question to fall within the countryside for planning purposes, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the development plan and allocated sites for business use within the district. The inspector highlighted the unsuitability of the location for the proposed development, citing conflicts with the development plan and the harm caused by deviating from designated land use.
Defiance in the Face of Adversity
Despite the setback of having his appeal dismissed and facing the prospect of running his business unlawfully, Cook remains resolute in his determination to continue operating at Chaucer Farm. He questions the council’s justification for deeming the site unsuitable for industrial or commercial use, pointing out neighboring businesses with similar usage rights. Cook highlights the presence of commercial permissions in close proximity to his farm, as well as ongoing developments in the surrounding area, challenging the notion of his business being out of place.
In response to potential enforcement action by the council, Cook asserts his willingness to stand firm and continue running his business, even if faced with legal repercussions. He expresses his readiness to defend his position in court if necessary, emphasizing his commitment to maintaining his operations at Chaucer Farm despite the planning dispute.
Council’s Perspective and Future Steps
On the council’s end, a spokesman acknowledges the dismissal of Cook’s appeal and indicates that they are assessing their position in light of the Planning Inspectorate’s decision. The council reiterates the grounds on which the planning application was initially refused, emphasizing the importance of adhering to local plan policies and ensuring the safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles in the area.
While the Planning Inspectorate refrains from commenting on the specific case, citing the potential for a challenge in the High Court if a legal mistake is believed to have been made, the council remains firm in its stance regarding the planning dispute with Cook. As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how both parties will proceed in resolving the ongoing conflict over land use at Chaucer Farm in Sturry.
