Agricultural building and hardstanding at 9 Birkinstyle Lane, Shirland, Alfreton

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing part of an existing stable block and building a single-storey agricultural building with external hardstanding.

“Proposal Description: Demolition of existing stable block and construction of agricultural building and external hardstanding to the rear (Amended Plans) (Amended Description)”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site included agricultural fields outside settlement limits, used for rare breed sheep, with hedgerows, nearby homes and a footpath.

“The location for the proposed building is outside the settlement development limits (SDL) of Higham and Stonebroom and therefore classed as being in the countryside for the purposes of the Local Plan. And for the Neighbourhood Plan it is classed as Open Landscape. The SDL runs along the garden boundaries (northern) of the properties on Birkinstyle Lane.”

“The fields are in use for agriculture, specifically the keeping of rare breed sheep. When officers visited the application site there were 3 sheep on site (as seen below). There were also sheep in the adjoining field but those were not the applicants.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier applications included rear stables, extensions and several refused outline applications for detached bungalows.

“Relevant Planning History (not the full site history)”

“75/00872/FL CA 06.03.1975 Extensions to lounge and kitchen. 80/01251/FL CA 25.12.1998 Field at rear - erection of 2 No. stables. 89/01129/OL R 25.12.1998 Land adjacent 9 Birkinstyle Lane Shirland Outline application for one detached bungalow 90/00911/OL R 25.12.1998 Detached bungalow adjacent 90/00912/OL R 25.12.1998 Land adjacent 9 Birkinstyle Lane Shirland Detached bungalow (outline application) 91/00841/FL CA 25.12.1998 First floor bedroom extension 05/01027/FL CAPD…”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the amended building necessary for agriculture and acceptable in landscape, highway and neighbour amenity terms, subject to conditions.

“The area of agricultural land owned by the application is 0.513ha (1.27acres). The building will be used for livestock housing, lambing and general storage associated with the land holding, including machinery and animal fodder and hay and straw bedding. The agricultural business is based on breeding of rare breed sheep in small numbers. The field is managed as four independent paddocks, each with perimeter fencing, to prevent overgrazing and loss of yield.”

“Local Plan Policy SS9 permits buildings of this use where they are necessary for the purposes of agriculture. Their impact on the landscape is therefore only acceptable where the impact is minimised in accordance with Local Plan Policies SDC12, SDC3 and Neighbourhood Plan Policies 3 and 7 and where the necessity of the building for these purposes outweighs the impact of the building on the character and appearance of the area.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The ward member and parish council raised concerns about size, height and need, while highways raised no objection and the Coal Authority withdrew its objection.

“Ward Member – Concerns regarding height, overall size and the need as agricultural building use is in question.”

“Coal Authority – Material consideration - Withdraws its objection (2 nd response dated 23rd February 2026) - The applicant previously submitted some coal mining information to accompany the planning application; however, the Coal Authority did not consider that it adequately addressed the impact of coal mining legacy on the proposed development.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

Two residents questioned the building’s size and need and raised concerns about demolition, materials, access, neighbouring structures and drainage.

“A lean-to on the hard standing would be more acceptable to store hay and straw for the winter period reducing the need for a 2nd storey on the barn. • Neighbour is concerned how the proposed development would affect their building, with the comments ‘made good’ not being clear enough. • Concerned about what materials will be used on the reduced building, to seal the building.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from the local ward member before considering the application.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed the relationship between the existing and proposed buildings and supported additional construction-hour wording and amendments to two conditions.

“Committee considered the application. It took into account the relevant Local and National Planning Policies.”

“Committee discussed the application. Some Members expressed concern around the relationship between the existing structure and proposed new building. Some Members suggested that the development was in keeping with policy but felt that an additional condition around working hours during the construction phase would be sensible.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Members approved the application conditionally, with the report’s conditions and informatives plus the additional and amended conditions agreed in discussion.

“At the conclusion of the discussion, Councillor N Baker and Councillor P Elliott moved and seconded a Motion to approve the application, in line with officer recommendation, subject to conditions, along with the additional conditions and amended conditions proposed by the Committee.”

“RESOLVED – That planning permission be conditionally approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, along with additional & amended conditions agreed by the Committee, with the final wording of the conditions delegated to the Planning Manager (Development Manager).”

Minutes