Town councillors have no objection to a Penrith firm’s plans for a new £2 million headquarters.
Penrith Farmers & Kidds Plc, also known as PFK, has submitted a planning application to Eden Council seeking approval to move their main offices to land off Mile Lane.
Information accompanying the application says PFK was historically known for livestock auctioneering until this part of the business ceased in 2002.
PFK’s main office has however remained within the Penrith and District Farmers Mart which is located along the A66 close to Junction 40 of the M6 motorway.
“There is now a need to expand office provision due to the continued business growth of PFK and Penrith and District Farmer’s Mart. There is therefore a desire by PFK to move out of the auction mart to facilitate this growth,” says the planning statement.
Penrith Town Council’s planning committee was told on Monday that although the site was in Dacre ward, they were being consulted as the location is right on the parish boundary. Councillors were told there was a previous application for the land next door which had extant permission for a caravan park and they had applied for permission for a small scale business park.
“It is land that is not allocated in the local plan, but adjacent to land which now has outline permission for the development of business, general industrial, storage and distribution and over the road from an application which is also not in the local plan for Barrnon which was given planning permission,” said deputy town clerk Ros Richardson.
The meeting was told that in the auction mart building there were a number of little rooms and the land agents had a couple of little rooms within there, but they have to hot desk because facilities were inadequate.
Town councillor Ron Kenyon explained that the idea was to develop the auction mart site as a farming hub with the land agency business being moved to another location. While Penrith and District Farmers Mart run the auction mart, the building is owned by PFK.
Mayor Charlie Shepherd said although it appeared to be another case of “creeping development” there were no planning grounds on which they could object.
