A former pig farmer embroiled in a planning war after switching up his business without permission says he will tell the council to "p*** off" if it tries to shut him down.

Stephen Cook says a "devastating" increase in costs forced him to ditch animal rearing during the Covid pandemic and instead start storing and servicing heavy machinery at Chaucer Farm in Sturry.

But his venture faces being blocked as a retrospective application to change the use of the site from agricultural was rejected by Canterbury City Council (CCC) and has now been upheld on appeal.

Following the decision, the authority says it is "considering our position", but Mr Cook, 53, has vowed to continue trading even if enforcement action is threatened.

He told KentOnline: “Originally we had a pig enterprise where we bred pigs, sold them to the market, or used them for sausages and meats.

“Covid and the war in Ukraine came and sort of knocked us off our feet with the price of animal feed, because we relied on soya, which is the main ingredient of the food.

“It nearly doubled from about £250 a tonne to £450 and it wasn’t sustainable to keep the business going.

“So, I tried to diversify by going into storage and machine repairs.”

Mr Cook started using buildings on the farm for this purpose, including a covered storage area, a workshop and a retail unit once home to a farm shop.

But the move required a change of use from agricultural to industrial or commercial.

In October last year a retrospective planning application was rejected by the city council, which said the development would result in general industrial units on land not allocated for business use.

Mr Cook appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, but last month it upheld the decision of the local authority, saying the site in question “falls within the countryside for planning purposes”.

On dismissing the appeal, the inspector said: “The Local Plan allocated sites for business use within the district in order to meet the district’s development needs during the plan period.

“The appeal site is not allocated for such uses. The site lies outside of any settlement boundary and therefore falls within the countryside for planning purposes.

“While the proposal would support economic growth and double the number of employees on-site, I do not find that these factors outweigh the harm caused by the unsuitable location of the development and the conflict I have identified with the development plan.”

But Mr Cook has questioned how the site can be deemed “unsuitable” when it is neighboured by another business with commercial usage rights.

“We’re not rural at all,” he said.

“There’s stacks of development going on all around us.

“There's commercial permission right next door to me and on the other side for another company.

“In ancient woodland, 500 metres away, there's a new world traveller camp with mobile homes.”

Despite the appeal decision meaning his business continues to be run unlawfully, Mr Cook - who bought the land for £100,000 in 2005 - says the fight is not over and he has launched another appeal.

“No doubt they'll try and land on me for some sort of offence in breaking planning laws, because that's what they do,” he said.

“If they were to tell me I can’t run my business here, I would tell them to p*** off.

“I'll keep running the business and if they want to go to court, I'll go to court with them.”

CCC spokesman Rob Davies says the authority is pleased Mr Cook’s appeal has been dismissed.

“We are aware of the outcome of this appeal and are considering our position,” he said.

“This planning application was refused in October 2023 on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to a number of Local Plan policies.

"In particular, the proposed development would have resulted in general industrial units outside of any employment site allocated for such uses, without any justification for the need of the development in this location.

"The applicant had also failed to adequately demonstrate that the development would not have any unacceptable effect on the safe movement of pedestrians and other vehicles in and around the site given the absence of plans demonstrating parking provision, layout or access road details.

"Naturally we are pleased that the independent planning inspector agreed and dismissed the applicant's appeal."

The Planning Inspectorate says it cannot comment on the case as the appeal decision could still be challenged in the High Court if it is believed a legal mistake has been made.