One rural dwelling at Little Brookend Farm, Kempsey, Worcester

What was proposed

The application sought to convert an existing agricultural building into one residential dwelling, with associated operational development and an outbuilding.

“Planning permission is sought for the conversion of an existing agricultural building to provide a single residential dwellinghouse. The proposal would involve the re-use and adaptation of the existing structure for residential purposes, including any associated operational development required to facilitate the conversion and residential occupation of the site.”

Officer report

The site

The site is north-east of Kempsey, in a rural setting and Significant Gap, with the application area wholly within Flood Zone 1.

“The application site is situated to the north-east of the settlement of Kempsey and lies to the south of the Significant Gap identified under Policy SWDPR 04 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan. The site occupies a position on the western side of the U60001 highway and is accessed via the local road network, with the U60002 located to the south.”

“In terms of flood risk, the application site itself is located wholly within Flood Zone 1, as defined by the Environment Agency, indicating a low probability of flooding. However, areas designated as Flood Zones 2 and 3 are present within approximately 500 metres of the site to both the west and east, and are associated with nearby watercourses and lower-lying land. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development is located outside of these higher-risk flood areas.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An agricultural barn had retrospective permission, and prior approval was granted for converting the agricultural building into two dwellings.

“Application Reference Description of Development Outcome 04/01113/FUL.”

“Retrospective application for agricultural barn 20m x 10m (already erected). APL. Sep 3 2004 M/25/00689/GPDQ Notification for Prior Approval for the proposed change of use of an Agricultural Building to two Dwellinghouses (Class C3), and for building operations reasonably necessary for the conversion. APL. Jun 23 2025”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions, a legal agreement for affordable housing, and consideration of any further representations.

“However, the planning balance must also have regard to the wider development plan context, including housing supply and delivery performance. The Council is able to demonstrate a strong housing delivery position, with a Housing Delivery Test result of 133%, indicating that housing is being delivered well in excess of national requirements.”

“Accordingly, the principle of residential development at the site is considered acceptable in this instance, subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and the satisfactory completion of the required affordable housing contribution via Section 106 agreement.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

The proposal conflicted with countryside location policies, but the realistic Class Q fallback and opportunities for better design, landscaping and environmental controls carried substantial weight.

“It is well established in case law, including Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, that fallback positions may be afforded significant weight where there is a real prospect of implementation rather than a purely theoretical possibility. In this instance, there is no substantive evidence to indicate that the Class Q permission would not be capable of implementation within the relevant timeframe.”

“It is acknowledged that the proposal results in conflict with the development plan in respect of spatial strategy and locational sustainability. These matters carry significant weight against the proposal. However, this must be balanced against the substantial weight afforded to the extant Class Q fallback position, which establishes that a residential dwelling could lawfully be created on the site irrespective of the outcome of this application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The case officer presented the application, a councillor represented the parish council, the applicant’s agent spoke in support, and two ward members addressed the committee.

The committee vote

Councillor J Michael proposed approval, Councillor D Godwin seconded it, and members voted nine for, one against and none abstaining.

“Councillors B Jones-Williams, K Wells, L Bruton, D Clarke and D Godwin spoke to the item.”

“A motion to APPROVE planning permission, in line with officer recommendation, was proposed by Councillor J Michael, seconded by Councillor D Godwin and…”

Minutes