Government inspector backs decision to refuse farm shop

Plans by Isherwood’s butchers to build a new farm shop and café next to the golf driving range on Keighley Road, Silsden, had attracted a huge amount of local support, with over 900 people writing letters of support for the planning application.

But in April, Bradford Council’s Keighley and Shipley Planning Panel refused the plans.

Planning officers had argued that the site lay in the Green Belt, and national planning policies said such developments would be inappropriate.

The panel agreed, and voted to refuse the farm shop.

In the wake of the refusal Keighley MP Robbie Moore called the panel’s decision “hypocritical and non sensical.”

Isherwoods then lodged an appeal against the refusal – meaning it would be a Government appointed inspector, and not Bradford Council, that would have final say on whether the farm shop could be built.

The business argued they needed to expand, and there was no other location in Silsden town centre that could meet its needs. The farm shop would represent a huge investment, and create local jobs.

The appeal claimed that planning officers had presented “very biased information” to the panel, and urged a planning inspector to visit the site.

It said the plans had huge support, “including from our local MP (then) Defra Agriculture Minister Robbie Moore.”

Robbie Moore criticised Bradford Council over the decision (Image: T&A)

When the decision was made in April, Mr Moore slammed the refusal. In a press statement shortly afterwards he said: “When it comes to an application from a local small business for a farm shop which would have created jobs and boosted the local economy, Bradford Council reject it - even after the Isherwood’s received huge widespread local support for their plans. It’s hypocritical, non sensical and anti-business.

“Bradford Council should be supporting local business growth, especially for key infrastructure projects such as local shops and services - not refusing them.”

Planning Inspector T Burnham was appointed to decide on the appeal, and visited the site on August 28.

In the appeal decision that has just been published, they concluded that the planning panel had made the right decision, and argued there was “no special circumstances” to throw out national Green Belt policies in this case.

Explaining his decision, he said: “The (planning) framework establishes that the construction of new buildings within the green belt should be regarded as inappropriate unless they are a type of building identified under a list of exceptions.

“The proposal does not form an exception. nor does it constitute development considered not inappropriate in the green belt. The proposal would therefore be inappropriate development in the green belt.

“A fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of green belts are their openness and their permanence.

“The proposed building would be prominent within views from the adjacent road which is set slightly above the level of the site. Depending on the direction of travel and position on the road of the user, the building would restrict views along the Aire Valley.

“Consequently, there would be a harmful loss of openness of the green belt. The proposal would undermine one of the purposes of the green belt at this location to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.

“The largely undeveloped nature of the site which allows extensive views through the site along the Aire Valley contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

“It is likely that the proposal, which would see an apparently popular business move from the centre of Silsden, would serve to erode the retail function of the local centre of Silsden and would not be in line with the desire to minimise the need to travel.”

Concluding, the decision report says: “The proposal would be inappropriate development within the green belt and would be harmful to green belt openness and would conflict with one of the purposes of including land within the green belt.

“There would be harm to the character and appearance of the area. The site would not be suitable for a farm shop and café in relation to its location having regard to development plan policy and other considerations.

“The very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.”