A LANDOWNER has hit back at councillors for rejecting his plan for a storage building saying they allowed “politics to get in the way” of their decision.

Andrew Grant, one half of Grant-Smith Agricultural Partnership based in Callow End, said he was “concerned and disappointed” by Malvern councillors for rejecting his plan for a wooden building to store machinery and livestock feed accusing the council’s planning committee of “falling far short of what was expected of them.”

He said councillors had “totally disrespected” the system and had never given his plan a chance.

Mr Grant said Malvern Hills District Council’s planning committee’s decision to reject the plan, was a “fudge” and councillors had found “the only legal excuse” to refuse it, contrary to the advice of the council’s own planning officers, and he will be immediately appealing the decision.

Council planning officers had said the plan should be approved as it had passed tests to show it was necessary and the building would be used but councillors still rejected it at a meeting on May 6.

Mr Grant said the 135 square metre building would have only taken up less than one per cent of his almost four-acre field.

“I fully respect the democratic process but [at the planning meeting] councillors collectively fell far short of what could reasonably be expected by members of the public.” he said.

“Malvern Hills planning department had prepared a thorough report recommending approval. Many of the councillors had blatantly not read the planning officers recommendation for approval and stated in their opening comments they were confused.

“The report was crystal clear. Frequently members referred to a 2018 application which was irrelevant.”

Several villagers had spoken out against the proposed building on land off Jennett Tree Lane in Callow End near Worcester over fears it would be too big and unsuitable. The committee said the plan was too big and too intrusive on the landscape.

Councillors also said it would harm open countryside and would be detrimental to the character of the area.

Cllr Tom Wells, who represents Powick, said the reasons why it should be refused had not changed from when it was first rejected in 2018. Cllr Wells called it a “very significant building” that was likely to be obstructive and questioned its need.

A decision was made by the council’s planning committee at the request of local councillors Tom and Kathy Wells.

Cllr Tom Wells declined to comment.