A SELSIDE farmer is to be forced to knock down an extension after losing his latest appeal in a year-long planning wrangle.

The row first flared-up last summer when farmer and businessman Raymond Crawford was building a five-bedroom house for himself and his family at High Thorns Farm at Selside. Mr Crawford had planning permission to build the house and an extension, but not to build the large extension which actually appeared.

When South Lakeland District Council stepped in and told him to remove it, Mr Crawford claimed that the extension was to be used for agricultural purposes, particularly to mill feed for his stock, and therefore exempted him from the need for planning permission. Mr Crawford applied for but failed to get retrospective planning permission. He appealed against that decision but lost.

At the time, Mr Crawford told the Gazette that SLDC's decision was "bureaucracy gone mad" because the extension was invisible from the nearest road and had no impact on anyone but himself and his family and again he appealed against the decision.

Mr Crawford's fight finally reached the end of the line this month when that appeal was dismissed by Government planning inspector Anthony Fussey.

Mr Fussey's report said the extension was less "utilitarian" than modern agricultural stores tended to be and was generally not consistent with agricultural use.

"Taken together," he said, "the features of the building's design, siting and internal layout indicate to me that, as a matter of fact and degree, it was not designed for the stated uses."

"I dismiss the appeal and uphold the enforcement notice."

He also dismissed Mr Crawfords attempts to make SLDC pay the costs he incurred in the appeal process.

An angry Mr Crawford said the council's and the inspector's decisions were forcing him to put up an ugly steel construction building in which to mill barley and store expensive equipment instead of a building made of local stone.

"I did not need a huge ridiculous building, I simply wanted to have a nice building in the

yard.

"I'm going to do the job, they cannot stop me from farming if they want me to put up a large steel agricultural building that is what I will have to do."

Following the inspector's decision, Mr Crawford has six months to remove all traces of the extension. He now only has recourse to an appeal in the High Court on a point of law. Such appeals are very rare and Mr Crawford said he had yet to make up his mind whether he wanted to continue the fight - which has already cost him thousands of pounds.

Peter Ridgeway, director of strategy and planning at SLDC, told the Gazette: "We were very satisfied that the inspector agreed that the council's decision to take enforcement action was warranted.

He said that the council was concerned about setting a precedent by giving permission for an agricultural building designed with other possible uses in mind. He added: " We were worried that the property would become a dwelling further down the line."

June 5, 2003 15:00