A FARMER embroiled in bitter battle with her council has accused it of refusing her latest planning permission for caravans needed to help with her business.

Janet Sewell, of Mill House Farm, in Windmill, near Bishop Auckland, fell out with her neighbours in the hamlet more than a decade ago when she submitted plans for three barns at the farm.

Two barns were approved by Teesdale District Council and constructed in 2006 and 2008, while another was granted approval by Durham County Council in 2010 but has never been built.

Her neighbours, who formed the Windmill Residents’ Action Group, went on to complain about excessive noise and odour and took their case to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) in 2012.

At the time it found that Teesdale council should never have given consent but plans to resolve the issue had to be shelved in 2014 when a resident of the village was convicted of fraud after sending letters of objection to the LGO purporting to be from Evenwood and Barony Parish Council. Following the conviction, the LGO issued a second report.

It changed its initial finding and the council’s area planning committee recommended imposing planning conditions for the existing barns and revoking permission for the third.

Mrs Sewell said she contacted Durham County Council in 2012 regarding the accommodation but was told it would not be considered until the issues with the LGO reports were concluded.

The parish councillor said the authority then validated an application for the accommodation in January 2015 and because they were due to start spring calving; decided to move the caravans in without consent.

She said: “The authority went well beyond the period to determine the application claiming they would decide in ‘due course’ but that time never arrived.

“The application has never been determined. The council only making suggestions that the business was not stable – but the only reason for that lack of certainty was the unresolved issue in that was the farm granted full planning approval correctly.

“Nothing whatsoever to do with any action of Mill House Farm. They have historically fully complied with all planning regulations. Mill House Farm is still trading so clearly demonstrating its commitment to the site and its sustainability.”

Mrs Sewell was served an enforcement notice to remove the accommodation in October 2015 and despite appealing; the decision was upheld and she now has until September 7 to remove the caravans.

She said: “The accommodation block is vital to the welfare and security of the livestock. Mill House Farm has been subjected to numerous attacks of harassment’s and criminal damage that the real need to have someone on site is paramount.”

Mrs Sewell said she last contacted the planning department on August 14 “only to be told that they are refusing to converse with Mill House Farm and are certainly not prepared to find a sensible solution to the ongoing continuing problem of their making”.

Stuart Timmiss, head of planning and assets at the council, said: “In this instance we are very clear that the original application for residential development as part of this business was not justified, which is why permission was refused.

"Mrs Sewell then appealed this decision with the Government Inspectors, who upheld the council’s stance. Unless Mrs Sewell can demonstrate a change in circumstance it is unlikely we would consider any new application should one be submitted.”