The erection of a polytunnel and shepherd’s hut in Cockfield might have destroyed archaeological evidence of an historic moat, county planners have said.
A retrospective planning application for the structures at Cockfield Hall was turned down by Durham County Council because of the archaeological impact, as well as the harm they cause to neighbouring listed buildings.
The initial application by J Bainbridge and R Peart also asked for a change of use from agricultural to holiday accommodation for the shepherd’s hut and approval of associated parking and hardstanding that had been installed.
Acting on behalf of the owners, agent Sunny Howd of Axis, said the polytunnel was important for the farm business as it provided temporary shelter for animals, particularly during lambing season.
He added that the shepherd’s hut would help diversify the farm and help sustain the business.
Mr Howd said: “The introduction of a shepherd’s hut provides a modest but meaningful diversification income stream through small-scale visitor accommodation.
“Farm diversification is actively supported in both national and local planning policy as a means of strengthening rural businesses.
“The associated tourism spend benefits the rural area, supporting local shops, pubs, and services.”
He added that the additional income would help support the maintenance of Cockfield Hall which is a Grade II-listed building.
Two residents wrote letters in support of the development, including a neighbour opposite the hall.
However, Durham County Council’s archaeology department was critical of the work that had taken place and objected.
They wrote: “Significant ground disturbing work has taken place without the opportunity for archaeological work to be carried out in order to mitigate damage to the extant earthworks and sub-surface archaeological remains associated with Cockfield Hall – a listed building – and its moat – an archaeological non-designated heritage asset.
“The work which has taken place, most notably in the form of the construction of large areas of hardstanding, will have destroyed any elements of the extant earthworks within their footprint and may have destroyed or truncated any sub-surface archaeological features which may have existed within their footprint.”
The county council’s design and conservation team, as well the landscape section both highlighted concerns because of its impact on Cockfield Hall as well as the nearby Grade-II listed church.
The conservation team said: “It would not be disputed that the proposal delivers a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area to a level that would be considered ‘less than substantial’.”
The county council’s tourism team supported the application.
Planning officer Sarah Seabury turned down the application saying the “small public benefit” offered by the shepherd’s hut did not outweigh the “less than substantial harm” the development had caused.
