| Condition Details / Information Notes |
| Drawing no/s:
Drg no. GA01 Rev B - Living Space Floor Plan View
Drg no. GA02 Rev C - Work Space Floor Plan View Ground Floor
Drg no. GA03 Rev B - First Floor Plan
Drg no. GA04 Rev C - Living Space Elevations
Drg no. GA05 Rev B - Work Space Elevations
Drg no. GA06 Rev C - Stone Building Bat Survey
Drg no. GA07 Rev B - Existing Building
Drg no. GA08 Rev B - Existing Site Plan
Drg no. GA09 Rev C - Proposed Site Plan
Drg no. GA10 Rev B - Site Location Aerial
Drg no. Baseline Habitat Map - Stoneford Barn Baseline Habitat Map July 2025 V1.0
Drg no. Proposed Habitat Map - Stoneford Barn Proposed Habitat Map July 2025 V1.0
Drg no. 8472 0001 - 8472 Topographical Survey
Drg no. Site Location Plan - Site Plan |
| The application site lies within the open countryside, outside any defined development boundary, and is not located within or adjacent to a town or Category 1, 2 or 3 village. The site is poorly related to day-to-day services and facilities and is located on Stoneford Lane, where there is no continuous footway or street lighting linking the site to the centre of Bretforton. Future occupiers, employees and visitors would therefore be heavily reliant on private car travel.
Although the live/work nature of the proposal may reduce the need for a daily commute by the occupiers of the residential element, insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate the likely day-to-day operation of the employment use, including employee numbers, deliveries, customer or visitor movements and associated trip generation. The proposal would therefore fail to represent a sustainable location for a new live/work unit and would not prioritise genuinely sustainable travel choices, contrary to Policies SWDPR03 and SWDPR15 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review and paragraph 115 of the NPPF. |
| The application site is located within the open countryside, outside any defined development boundary, and is not within or adjacent to a town or Category 1, 2 or 3 village. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy SWDPR15C(i).
Furthermore, the residential and employment elements would not form a single cohesive building of an appropriate scale and design; the residential floorspace would exceed the 100sqm maximum; separate kitchen and welfare facilities for the workspace have not been demonstrated; and no details of superfast broadband or electric vehicle charging have been provided. Insufficient information has also been submitted to demonstrate that the use would not involve sales to visiting members of the public, or that the development would operate as a genuine live/work unit with the residential use remaining ancillary. The proposal therefore also fails to comply with Policy SWDPR15C(iii), (v), (vi), (vii), (ix) and (x) and would result in inappropriate development in the open countryside, contrary to Policies SWDPR03 and SWDPR15 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review. |
| By reason of its scale, massing, form, materials and architectural detailing, particularly the substantial composite-clad workshop building and associated areas of parking and hardstanding, the proposed development would appear as a converted agricultural barn with a large industrial-style building attached. The disparate residential and employment elements would result in an awkward and visually discordant form of development which would lack cohesion and fail to respond positively to the rural character and appearance of the site.
The scale and utilitarian appearance of the workshop element, together with its associated commercial activity and infrastructure, would introduce an urbanising and industrialising form of development which would fail to integrate successfully with, or conserve and enhance, the surrounding rural landscape. The proposal would therefore constitute poor design and would be contrary to Policies SWDPR28 and SWDPR34 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review and paragraphs 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| The proposed development would result in the loss and disturbance of identified bat roosts within the existing buildings, comprising two soprano pipistrelle day roosts, a lesser horseshoe bat night roost and a potential lesser horseshoe bat hibernation roost.
Whilst mitigation has been proposed and the development may be capable of maintaining the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status, the proposal would constitute unacceptable development in principle and would result in identified design and landscape harm. The development has therefore not been demonstrated to be necessary for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Furthermore, insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there are no satisfactory alternatives which would avoid or reduce the impacts upon the identified bat roosts.
The Local Planning Authority cannot therefore be satisfied that the relevant derogation tests would be met or that a licence would be capable of being granted under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The proposal would consequently be contrary to Policy SWDPR29 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review and paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| The submitted Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment demonstrates that the proposed development would result in a 5.38% net loss in habitat biodiversity units and would fail to satisfy the applicable habitat trading rules. The development would therefore be unable to achieve the required minimum 10% biodiversity net gain within the application site and would be reliant upon the provision of off-site biodiversity units.
However, no suitable off-site biodiversity provision has been identified or secured through a completed planning obligation, conservation covenant or other appropriate legally enforceable mechanism. In the absence of such provision, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the required biodiversity net gain would be delivered, managed and maintained for the required period of at least 30 years.
The proposal therefore fails to demonstrate that the statutory biodiversity gain objective would be achieved and conflicts with Policy SWDPR30 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review and paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| Positive and Proactive Statement. In dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following ways:-
- seeking further information following receipt of the application;
- seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the application;
- considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement
In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application. This is in accordance with paragraph 39 of the NPPF. Despite these efforts, the Council still consider that planning permission should be refused for the reasons set out above. |
