Planning councillors have rejected a Calderdale farming family’s application to build a new home to allow on-the-spot attention for cattle including pregnant heifers.

Richard Wood had sought outline permission from Calderdale Council to build an agricultural worker’s dwelling at Moorend Farm in Triangle, near Sowerby Bridge.

Mr Wood’s agent, Anthony Atkinson, said three generations of the Wood family worked in the family business – established in 1967 – and daughter Lucy would live at the home.

He said between 80 and 100 of the farmers’ herd were housed at the farm, depending on the time of year.

“The provision of a dwelling at Moorend Farm is necessary to ensure constant on-site supervision for the cattle held at the site all year round to ensure that the requisite level of skilled labour is available and on hand at all times,” he said.

Recent winter weather was a demonstration of the need for this, said Mr Atkinson.

“There is no substitute for being on site when dealing with an enterprise of this nature for the care and welfare of the cattle which are to give birth,” he added.

Mr Atkinson argued this demonstrated the very special circumstances demanded by national planning policy on such buildings, and the application was supported by Ryburn ward councillor Leah Webster (Lab) and former councillor Robert Thornber (Con).

Mr Wood told the council’s planning committee on-the-spot care was needed at the farm. “On days they are calving, we need to be there,” he said.

But the council’s planning officers disagreed, recommending the plans be refused permission.

They argued a farmhouse and other buildings which were part of the same family business was 400 metres away, and another understood to be part of the business around 180 metres, while recognising calving takes place at the Moorend site.

Planners acknowledged there was no convenient direct route between the latter and Moorend because of a steep valley in between and the road track distance was around 1,200 metres – but this would only take around five minutes, said officers.

Officers said in their view, essential need for the new dwelling and not been demonstrated and very special circumstances did not exist to outweigh “substantial” harm new development would bring to the green belt.