We’re being forced to tear down two huge domes in our garden by ‘nuisance’ council – even though neighbours LOVE them

VILLAGERS have slammed their “nuisance” local council for forcing two camping domes to be torn down despite other residents loving them.

The large glass structures, which are as tall as a single-storey building, were erected on the site of the 68 Cafe in rural Toft Hill, .

Despite neighbours loving the domes, which have been in place for nearly two years, Durham County Council has pressed for their closure, citing the “unacceptable harm” they cause to the landscape.

The domes sit just off a main road and are set back around 300 metres from the nearest houses.

One is filled with gym and yoga equipment while the other is packed full of games.

Locals argue that the domes bring in more people and interest to the village, and are stunned the local authority wants to get rid of them.

The domes are freely accessible for anyone who has booked into any one of the ten smaller pods on the site.

No is permitted at the domes, which are overseen by Country Glamping Ltd. – the same company which also operates the site and tearoom.

John Stephenson, who manages the cafe on behalf of the company, was confused at the council's reasoning for the closure, saying the domes had “gone down brilliantly” following their introduction.

He believes someone in the village may have been frustrated by the structures and told the council, which has now acted in response.

John said: “There are a lot of local people who are employed on the premises both young and old and this is important for them.

“The domes have been up for around 18 months and they get great feedback.

“We are a and we get lots of people who come to use the cafe and the domes.”

John emphasised that since there was no alcohol licence at the domes, the “wrong crowd” would not be attracted to the village.

He added: “If we don't have businesses like this then people won't be attracted to the village.

“There aren't even any shops around here so we are trying to help the place.”

The 63-year-old, who has worked at the cafe for four years, said he had no idea why anyone would have objected to the domes.

He explained there had been “ample opportunity” for the council to express the views of locals if any had a problem with the appearance of the structures.

John said not a single person had made any “aggressive comment” about how the domes looked, adding that they had been designed to “keep the colour theme” with the rest of the site and surroundings.

He said: “We've tried to keep the colour theme in keeping with the rest of the place and they don't look bad at all.

“At nighttime the sky is stunning to look at and people in the domes get to see it.”

John added he was “surprised” at the council's decision, saying it “should be helping small businesses”.

He continued: “[The decision] has come to a standstill for now and we understand it lies with the Government.

“They say they are trying to help small business so let's see if they're true to their word.

“We don't know of anyone who has been upset by these domes.

“It is a unique thing and it would be a shame if they were taken down.”

In the small village, locals have appeared unanimous in their support for the enterprise.

Retired business owner Alan Corner, 69, hit out at the council's stance, saying the domes are “great for the community”.

He said: “They have been there over a year now and I would let them stay.

“They have a nice sitting area and they have little games rooms and are out of the way of houses and don't cause any harm.

“It is important for creating as well so I don't understand why the council are doing this.”

Alan also took aim at the council for “stopping people from doing things”, saying he did not understand how the domes could be “causing anyone any harm”.

He continued: “On a weekend it is absolutely heaving and they are great to look out onto the view.

“The council have got their priorities wrong.”

Planning officers at the council have stated the domes are “incongruous” in nature and have caused “unacceptable harm to the character, quality and distinctiveness” of the local landscape.”

The two domes, which measure between six and eight metres in diameter and just over four metres in height, were installed after the smaller camping pods were initially built.

Pub landlord John McMennum, 76, praised the “attraction” and said it should be allowed to stay.

He added: “People travelling through will often stop for a coffee and they will take photographs of them to show their family.”

“They get used by yoga people and it is an ideal place for activities.

“I don't know why the parish council have rejected it because it's technically not in their boundary.”

John's partner Isobel Brand, 66, said: “You only have to look out to the horizon to see all of the windmills and you realise the domes don't look bad.

“They are interesting for the area and they bring something a little bit different.”

A worker in the village, who did not wish to be named, slammed the council for being “awkward”.

They said: “The domes do not bother me.

“I understand if people say they might not be in keeping with the area but you can hardly see them from where the houses are.

“But those against it are those who won't want to see any change or improvement to the village.

“There's rumours of a bypass being built through the village so if that happens then the domes will be the least of our worries.”

Steve Reed, Durham County Council's planning manager, said: “We fully recognise the contribution The 68 Café makes to our county and economy and as such were pleased to approve the business' plans for a holiday let and ten glamping pods.

“However in this instance, officers were unable to support the retention of the domes which, after careful consideration, were felt to be harmful to the character, quality and distinctiveness of the local landscape.

“We await the inspector's decision on the appeal and are happy to advise the café in relation to any proposals it might bring forward in the future, regardless of the outcome.”