A FARM near Tenbury Wells has been told it must get planning permission for an agricultural building needed to battle thefts and support enterprise.

An application to determine if prior approval was required for a proposed agricultural building at The Old School in Knighton on Teme, near Tenbury, was submitted to the Malvern Hills District Council in April.

The proposed building, which a planning statement was said to support enterprise at the farm, which is part arable and periodically grazed by stock, was designed as a secure storage building for straw, hay, grain, and the storage and maintenance of agricultural machinery and vehicles, a planning statement said.

ALSO READ:

The statement said that the building was needed for a holding of approximately five and a half hectares, which at present "has no infrastructure to support the enterprise".

"It is imperative that there is a building designed for secure storage within the holding," the statement said, referencing "several recent instances" where the farm had suffered break-ins, with items including a farm trailer stolen.

It would also be available for the temporary housing of stock, the statement said, with the building designed and constructed using grey steel sheeting, which it said is a material similar to those used to construct other agricultural buildings in the area.

Do you have a Ludlow or Tenbury story you would like us to include? We would love to hear from you!

Send us your news by emailing news@ludlowadvertiser.co.uk or by clicking here.

But a planning officer's report said that the proposal did not meet the requirements for Class A permitted development, which allows for works for the erection, extension, or alteration of a building or any excavation or engineering operations reasonably necessary for the purpose of agriculture in an agricultural unit of five hectares or more.

The report said that while the application stated that the land equated to more than five hectares, the location plan showed that the land outlined equated to less than five hectares, and that there was insufficient evidence submitted to clearly demonstrate that the land would equate to five hectares or more.

The application was refused on May 16 as the proposal could not be considered to be permitted development and planning permission is required.