Essex wedding venue hits back after being ordered to cancel all future events

An Essex wedding venue has blasted a "cynical" decision by a planning inspector to dismiss its appeal against an enforcement notice banning it from hosting future events. Management of Stock Street Farm Barn said they are "immensely disappointed" following the failed appeal at the end of April.

The venue has been embroiled in a row with Braintree District Council since the enforcement notice was issued in April 2022. The notice followed a previous application in 2017 by the venue to allow various events to take place there, including weddings, cinema screenings, a dance hall, a concert hall and associated parking.

The venue appealed the decision to reject the application, which was thrown out in 2019. Enforcement proceedings were then issued by the council in 2022 but Stock Street Farm Barn appealed this, which concluded on April 30 this year with independent planning inspector Luke Perkins ruling against the wedding venue.

Read more: Essex wedding venue told it must stop all events by council

Read more: Baby boy dies in hospital after incident at Legoland as Essex woman released on bail

In a lengthy statement following this decision, Stock Street Farm Barn owner Michael Staines, who is also an independent Braintree district councillor for Three Fields ward, was deeply critical of the decisions by the council and planning inspector, saying they have never had any incidents or complaints in the past eight years. Mr Staines additionally said the venue had attempted to mitigate any traffic concerns with a travel plan for the venue, and insisted that it would not cause any significant traffic problems or serious crashes.

He said: "Stock Street Farm Barn is not the problem here. Residents will quickly see through this cynical attack on Coggeshall’s economy, social cohesion and rural character and question why our tiny business has been targeted for forced closure when huge unpopular development bringing [hundreds] of times more traffic is supported by officers and continues all around despite offering residents nothing in return.

"Closing Stock Street will not reduce collisions on the A120 because none have ever taken place because of our operations. Closing Stock Street will have no statistical impact on congestion or road wear. Over eight million vehicles pass our gates on the A120 each year but our 7,000 guests generate less than 0.002 per cent of today’s annual A120 volume – arriving by car, taxi, bus, on foot and by bike."

Work on a new homes development in Coggeshall began in 2022, with Bovis Homes building 161 new properties as part of a 300-house development on land off Colchester Road. Mr Staines also stated the ongoing construction of a huge incinerator and waste management facility near Silver End had a more detrimental impact than his venue.

'This was the optimal use for our historical buildings'

Mr Staines said Stock Street Farm Barn has provided various services to the Coggeshall economy over the years, estimating that it contributes more than £500,000 a year to the "immediate rural economy". He argued without the enforcement action the venue would have "continued to flourish".

He continued that the venue had helped cyclists, walkers, trail runners and vulnerable road users "socialise safely" in a community split by the A120. Mr Staines also said that leisure use for the site is the "optimal viable use" for the listed buildings, and have worked to keep all of them unchanged.

He said: "We are very proud that we have 'walked the talk' and achieved keeping the farmstead together unchanged by the material change of reuse, without any complaints and protecting and funding the preservation of our heritage assets with no cumulative or prolonged heritage harm.

"Our creative success is dismissed by Officers that preferred to argue that guest cars crossing the site and the potential guest parking around the setting created a less than substantial heritage harm which outweighed all the other cumulative benefits."

In his conclusions, Luke Perkins acknowledged the venue was of "considerable value to the local community" and that he had "carefully" considered this, including a petition of more than 3,000 signatures asking him to recognise the leisure activities as the optimal use for the site.

Mr Perkins however said this did not outweigh, in his view, the highway safety issues posed by the venue. He stated aspects of the travel plan were "implausible" and that a lack of crashes so far could be down to "a matter of luck". Mr Perkins also rejected the venue's claim they had been the victim of "heavy-handed" enforcement.

Stock Street Farm Barn would have the option of challenging the inspector's decision through a judicial review, though no such plans have been stated so far. Mr Staines, who will now have to comply with the council enforcement notice within two months, shared his thanks to all supporters and visitors over the years.

He added: "We want to take this opportunity to thank our loyal local customers, over 3000 petitioners, amazing suppliers, partner businesses, acts and fantastic local Independent and Green Councillors for their tireless support facing down and challenging the Corporation and hope that the hard-working volunteer Parish Councils and Neighbourhood Plan team disfranchised by this action will not give up but continue to stand up for their communities because they need you now more than ever."

Council said they had 'no choice' but to take enforcement action

EssexLive put all of Mr Staines' criticisms to Braintree District Council and also asked why it chose enforcement action over any conditions and monitoring orders for Stock Street Farm Barn.

A council spokesperson said: "We know how valued this business is within the local community and all they do to benefit our local economy, however, two independent planning inspectors have agreed that these benefits do not outweigh the harms in terms of heritage and highway safety.

“Planning matters relating to this site date back to 2016 and during that time we have had numerous discussions with the owner of the business. Alongside National Highways, we considered whether conditions could mitigate the heritage and highway safety impacts of the development as part of the original planning application, but it was concluded that conditions wouldn’t be able to make the development acceptable in planning terms and should be refused. The business owner has also had two opportunities to independently challenge our planning position and they have not been successful on either appeal.

“Unfortunately, the business has been operating entirely without planning consent for over 8 years and we have been clear in our position since we determined the original planning application in 2017. The council has therefore had no choice but to take enforcement action in April 2022 based on planning merits, as the local planning authority, with the applicant continuing to operate an unauthorised use in full knowledge that the development was unacceptable on heritage and highway safety grounds.

"This was supported by two independent planning inspectors, and in the most recent appeal decision the planning inspector acknowledged the heritage harm and serious highway safety issues, with there being ‘a real risk of collision at high speed and the potential for people to be killed or seriously injured."