A BID by a farmer to provide agricultural accommodation for his son was refused.
The application was put forward at Hoofield Lane, Huxley by Mr and Mrs P Studley.
The two storey, two bed, cottage style property, built in Cheshire brick with a slate roof and a gravelled drive, was described as “large” by planning officers.
For Mr and Mrs Studley, Duddon Common based Planning and Design told Chester City Council the family had built up a successful farming business.
It was proposed that one of the sons, John Studley, should take over part of the business run from buildings on land half a mile away from one of the farm houses.
His need for on site accommodation was set out in an agricultural appraisal.
The property would have views of the land and farm buildings.
Huxley Parish Council felt there was no requirement for a further property as there was an agriculturally tied home within a few hundred metres which was let out.
Neighbours objected raising concerns about the state of the roads due to their use by farm vehicles and cows, the need for boundary screening and restrictions on the further development of the land.
Planning officers accepted the business has been successful for half a century and is financially sound.
They also agreed there was a need for the proposed accommodation due to the number of cattle and on security grounds.
Although Mr and Mrs Studley had declared no other affordable homes were available close by, planning officers argued that a nearby property was understood to be rented out to non agricultural tenants which did not meet an agricultural occupancy condition.
They believed the accommodation would be suitable and would enable care to be provided at short notice and emergencies involving the cattle to be dealt with quickly.
It was also thought the size of the proposed house was “large” and would not be acceptable given the size of the two farm houses on the holding.
Recommending the application should be refused, they said alternative accommodation in the family's ownership was located adjacent to the site and there was no justification for a new property.
The city council agreed under delegated powers the plans should be rejected.
