Agricultural building conversion at Talliefields Aylesmore, Shipston-on-Stour

The site

The site is in open countryside and contains a modern agricultural building about 2.2 kilometres north of Upper Brailes.

“Site Context The application site is located in open countryside and comprises a modern agricultural building of no particular architectural merit approximately 2.2km north of the settlement of Upper Brailes.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications included granted and refused proposals concerning the building’s conversion, agricultural development and the implementation of Class Q permission.

“24/00645/LDP (‘the LDC Application’) Proposed implementation of Class Q prior approval 22/01886/COUQ Refused 21.06.2024 24/00694/COUQ To convert existing agricultural building to single dwelling house Refused 24.05.2024 23/01637/FUL Proposed conversion of agricultural building to form a single residential dwelling, associated curtilage, car parking and landscaping Refused at Committee 03.10.2023 24/02469/AGNOT (Shipston Fields – adjacent site) Steel portal framed…”

“Proposed hard standing for purposes of agriculture. Granted 05.08.2022 22/00918/AGNOT ‘The Second AGNOT’ Steel Portal Framed Agricultural Building Granted 20.04.2022 21/03999/AGNOT ‘The First AGNOT’ Steel Portal Framed Agricultural Building.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal conflicted with countryside and housing-location policies, and the harms outweighed its modest benefits.

“Conclusions and Planning Balance The lack of a 5 year housing land supply triggers NPPF paragraph 11(d). This states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless one of two exceptions applies.”

“I consider that one dwelling to the housing land supply would provide a modest benefit but would not overcome the harms and conflicts that have been identified. Consequently, when considering the associated harms and conflict against the modest benefits, I conclude that the harms outweigh the benefits of the scheme and as such, despite the engagement of NPPF paragraph 11(d), planning permission should be refused in this instance.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, ecology, environmental health, waste and building control raised no objection, subject to conditions where specified.

“Warwickshire County Council Highways (WCC Highways) No objection subject to conditions (07.01.2026)”

“Stratford District Council Environmental Health No objection subject to conditions (10.02.2026)”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant and the district council ward member spoke at the meeting.

The committee vote

A motion to refuse in line with the recommendation was proposed and seconded, then passed by 10 votes to 2.

“Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting, a Motion of REFUSE, in accordance with the recommendation detailed in the report, was proposed by Councillor Harvey and seconded by Councillor Ballinger.”

“Thereafter, by 10 votes in favour to 2 votes against, it was…”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused for the report’s stated reason concerning the conversion of a modern agricultural building in open countryside.

“That Planning Application 25/02776/FUL be REFUSED for the following reason:”

“1 reason contained in the report; and • 1 note contained in the report.”

Minutes