Livestock polytunnel and shepherd’s hut at Cockfield Hall Cockfield Hall Road, Cockfield, Bishop Auckland

What was proposed

The retrospective application sought a 10-year livestock polytunnel and a shepherd’s hut for holiday accommodation, with parking, hardstanding and landscaping.

“Proposal: Retrospective application for the erection of polytunnel for the temporary accommodation of livestock use for a temporary 10-year period and material change of the use of land from agriculture to siting of 1no. shepherd’s hut for holiday accommodation, with associated parking, hardstanding and landscaping…”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The agricultural site lies within the conservation area, near listed buildings, public footpaths, fields and nearby homes.

“The site is located within the Cockfield Conservation Area and within the setting of the Grade II Listed Cockfield Hall to the south and the Grade II* Listed Church of St Mary and associated Grade II Listed tombs to the north. Land to the north of Front Street and the south west of Front Street is designated as an Area of Higher Landscape Value.”

“Access to the site is provided from Front Street to the north via Public Footpath No.36 which runs southwards through the application site. Public Footpath No.35 is located to the north, with Public Footpath No.33 located to the northeast.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A previous application was refused in 2025, after which the proposal was amended to limit the polytunnel to 10 years and revise landscaping.

“Planning permission was refused for this proposal in 2025. The current application has been amended to retain the polytunnel for a period of 10 years only rather than permanently and to provide an amended landscaping scheme.”

“This application is a resubmission of a previously refused application (DM/25/02593/FPA) for the retention of a permanent polytunnel for temporary livestock use and material change of the use of the land from agriculture to siting of 1no. shepherd’s hut for holiday accommodation, with associated parking and hardstanding. The application was refused under delegated powers on 1 December 2025. Planning Policy…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the structures harmed heritage assets and the landscape, while the proposed screening was insufficient and benefits did not outweigh the harm.

“The proposed landscaping intended to provide mitigation and screening is considered insufficient and contrary to Policy 8(h)(i), as it would not provide effective screening prior to the development (which has already taken place), would take a number of years to establish, and even then would fail to adequately mitigate the harm, particularly in short-range views.”

Officer report

Who spoke to members

A local councillor and the applicant spoke in support, describing the farm’s history, animal welfare needs, diversification benefits and the claimed local economic effects.

Members discussed the benefits

Members debated the balance between farm diversification, visitor spending, food production and heritage harm, with several supporting approval and questioning the officers’ assessment.

“Councillor R Bell felt there was confliction between Policies 10a and 44 of the County Durham Plan as Policy 10a stated that farm diversification schemes should be supported and Policy 44 expected a development to sustain the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets, including any contribution made by their setting.”

“Councillor M Wilkes had read the report and had to google the area as it was in the middle of nowhere. He was aware income had fallen through the floor since Brexit with cuts to grants so the applicant was trying to protect the farm. The benefit of the Shepherds hut would bring tourists to the area. He could not see where the harm was as the hut was in the curtilage of the property but provided benefits to the area. There had been 40 people supporting the application.”

Minutes

The committee’s vote

The committee unanimously resolved to be minded to approve the application, subject to a legal agreement and conditions delegated to officers.

“The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) explained that as the application had been recommended for refusal there were no conditions attached. She advised Members that when voting they could only be minded to approve the application and that delegated powers should be given to officers to negotiate the conditions.”

“That the application be MINDED to be APPROVED subject to entering into a legal agreement and a suite of conditions delegated by Officers.”

Minutes

Conditions to be agreed

Officers were authorised to negotiate conditions covering noise, landscaping, archaeology, lighting, boundaries, visitor use and the polytunnel’s ten-year temporary period.

“The Principal Planning Officer explained that standard conditions would be applied to make the development acceptable. Conditions would relate to matters such as a noise management plan, landscaping, archaeology, lighting, boundary treatments, restricting to visitors accommodation, and ensuring that the structure was temporary for ten years.”

Minutes