A defiant ex-farmer has declared he’ll tell the council to “p*** off” if they try to shut down his new business over a planning dispute.
Stephen Cook, 53, was forced to abandon animal rearing and convert his Sturry, Kent farm into a storage and servicing hub for heavy machinery due to a “devastating” surge in costs during the pandemic.
However, his ventures are at risk of being halted as he only sought to change the site’s use from “agricultural” to “industrial” retrospectively – a move that Canterbury City Council (CCC) rejected.
READ MORE: Capybara named Cinnamon escapes Hoo Zoo, search underway near Humber Brook
See our latest animal news stories
This decision has been upheld by the Planning Inspectorate, meaning Mr Cook could face enforcement action if he continues trading.
Despite this, the resolute ex-farmer is determined to keep his business operational – stating he’ll tell the bosses to “p*** off” if they try to shut him down.
(Image: No credit)
Mr Cook shared: “I bought the farm in 2005 and originally we had a pig enterprise where we bred pigs, sold them to the market, or used them for sausages and meats.”
“Covid and the war in Ukraine came and sort of knocked us off our feet with the price of animal food.”
“Soya, the main ingredient of the food, nearly doubled from about £250 a tonne to £450, and it wasn’t sustainable to keep the business going.”
“So, I tried to diversify by going into machine storage and repairs.”
Mr Cook began utilising buildings on Chaucer Farm – an action which necessitated a planning application for a ‘change of use’ from agricultural to industrial or commercial.
Mr Cook made a retrospective application in October last year, but it was turned down by CCC who argued that the project would lead to the creation of general industrial units on a site not set aside for business purposes.
The planning inspector weighed in, noting: The Local Plan allocated sites for business use within the district in order to meet the district’s development needs during the plan period. The appeal site is not allocated for such uses.
(Image: No credit)
The site lies outside of any settlement boundary and therefore falls within the countryside for planning purposes.
Mr Cook said: “While the proposal would support economic growth and double the number of employees on-site, I do not find that these factors outweigh the harm caused by the unsuitable location of the development and the conflict I have identified with the development plan.”
Nevertheless, Mr Cook disputed the decision, pointing out that his farm is surrounded by businesses with commercial usage rights. He contested: “We’re not rural at all. There’s stacks of development going on all around us. There’s commercial permission right next door to me and on the other side for another company.
“In ancient woodland, 500 metres away, there’s a traveller camp with mobile homes.”
Following the knockback from the Planning Inspectorate, Mr Cook has decided to launch yet another appeal.
He defiantly stated that he will continue to operate his business – even if it’s against the law – and is prepared to face the council in court if necessary.
He declared: “No doubt they’ll try and land on me for some sort of offence in breaking planning laws, because that’s what they do.”
“If they were to tell me I can’t run my business here, I would tell them to p*** off.”
“I’ll keep running the business and if they want to go to court, I’ll go to court with them.”
A spokesperson for CCC expressed satisfaction with the Planning Inspectorate’s decision.
Rob Davies commented: “We are aware of the outcome of this appeal and are considering our position.”
“This planning application was refused in October 2023 on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to a number of Local Plan policies.”
“In particular, the proposed development would have resulted in general industrial units outside of any employment site allocated for such uses, without any justification for the need of the development in this location.”
“The applicant had also failed to adequately demonstrate that the development would not have any unacceptable effect on the safe movement of pedestrians and other vehicles in and around the site given the absence of plans demonstrating parking provision, layout or access road details.”
“Naturally we are pleased that the independent planning inspector agreed and dismissed the applicant’s appeal.”
The Planning Inspectorate has refrained from commenting on the case, stating that the appeal decision could still be contested in the High Court if it is believed a legal error has occurred.