Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more


  • Comment
A couple who have complained about noise, smell and light disturbances from a lamb rearing shed are asking the high...
A couple who have complained about noise, smell and light disturbances from a lamb rearing shed are asking the high court to overturn Leominster DC's decision in April last year to grant planning permission to the owners of the farm to retain the 32 metres long shed.

The couple's counsel, Mr Ian Dove, told the court that the farm owners had originally been granted planning permission for a smaller winter lambing shed to be erected no closer than 20 metres from the wall of Mr and Mrs Pothecary's back garden.

'But in January last year the couple became aware that the building proposed was much larger and nearer to their residence than they had been led to believe,' Mr Dove said.

The original planning consent had been for a shed 42 metres long and nine metres wide, but the new building was of steel and wood construction, 32 metres long, 21 metres wide, and running the length of the couple's rear garden wall at a distance of just 10 metres, the court was told.

The couple wrote to the district council complaining about the development, but retrospective planning permission was granted for the building's retention on April 12 last year.

Counsel for the couple Mr Dove claimed planning permission had been unlawfully granted by the district council after it failed to take adequate account of the site's location in the Kingsland Conservation Area and that it had 'a duty to preserve the character and enhance the appearance ranch of the area.'

The council's planning committee had also reached its decision in breach of local and regional planning policy, he claimed.

The local authority insists it took all relevant considerations into account before granting planning consent. The case continues.

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.