An entreaty to keep a controversial £50,000 structure built by Giffords Circus have fallen on deaf ears after planners refused a retrospective request for the building on farmland in the Cotswolds.

Based at picturesque Fennells Farm in Laurie Lee country, the farm base for the nationally celebrated circus initially locked horns with planners, as exclusively reported in January, over what it claimed was a workshop, the construction having been carried out with no rubber stamp from Stroud District Council.

In addition to livestock rearing, equestrian use and a recent vineyard, Gifford's base since 2014 at Fennells Farm near Slad, some three miles from Stroud, is "where the magic happens", the circus states, with tickets sold for preliminary shows at the farm before the show goes out on annual tour.

Fans are told: "Sat high on a hill, Fennells Farm overlooks the bucolic Slad Valley and market town of Stroud down in the valley below. This is where the magic happens, the circus shows are created, and rehearsals take place every spring before the show opens.

"Fennells Farm is a magical place, it looks like a farm at a first glance, but in the barns, there are props, costumes and a team of dedicated employees all burning the midnight oil to get the show on the road."

Documents submitted to planners show how converting an existing stone barn as an alternative scheme at the farm would have cost £368,000, while the existing contested building had come in at £50,000 for set up and fit out in total.

Simon Firkins, of Cheltenham-based SF Planning, said: "The proposed development is a single-storey workshop with a pitched roof, constructed using concrete blocks, timber cladding, and a tin roof, located to the west of the stone barn."

The workshop supported the farm's vineyard expansion and commitment to traditional farming methods, he said, promoting and sustaining traditional agricultural practices using specialist vinicultural equipment and compact machinery."

He added: "Alongside providing space for maintaining specialist and compact tractors, the workshop accommodates a foundry for making and repairing horseshoes for Shire horses used on the farm; storage for Shire horse tack and equipment; storage for tools, chemicals, and other agricultural tasks; and a welfare facility for four to five staff working across the year."

But Bisley with Lypiatt Parish Council flagged its concerns over the building, telling planners: "Given the visual appearance of this building and its design with generous south facing fenestration that is highly unusual for an agricultural building in the Cotswold National Landscape."

And in an extensive report, SDC Case Officer Charlie Morris said insufficient information had been received to demonstrate an essential need for the building.

He added: "The appearance of the proposed workshop is overly domestic with a wraparound addition, large window openings, and domesticated fenestration arrangements. This would result in limited harm to the setting of the farm context and of the stone barn, a non-designated heritage asset."

The farm has seen a succession of approved bids and pre-planning approaches on use to accommodate the activity of the circus business over the years. These have included a change of use from agricultural to hotel use and various new buildings and facilities for accommodation and equestrian use.

Stating that submitted photographic evidence for the case had been unclear, Mr Morris added: "The application is not supported by any business plan which details the scale or specifics of the above activities. It is unclear whether all activities are established or future aspirations. 

"No explicit detail has been provided to outline the number of staff employed by the enterprise, the permanency and nature of their employment, and the need for the welfare facilities. In addition, welfare facilities for staff are not outlined on the submitted floor plan therefore it is uncertain where in the building these will be provided."

Despite Mr Firkins' claim that planners needed to support a "thriving rural enterprise", the new building must now go. 

Planners told applicant Toti Gifford they had received "insufficient information" to demonstrate an essential need for the workshop, with no demonstrable evidence of its requirement for sustainable farming enterprise. Additionally, the appearance of the proposed workshop was "overly domestic with a wraparound addition, large window openings, and domesticated fenestration".

● The applicant has six months to lodge an appeal against the decision.