An undocumented battery testing facility in a remote Cotswold village which was described as "dangerous" will have to pack up and go after planners threw out a retrospective bid for the Gloucester business to stay put.

As reported in Punchline-Gloucester.com in March, Quedgeley-based Advanced Innergy Solutions Ltd (trading as AIS), which has won a King's Award for Enterprise as a world leader in insulation and passive fire protection, had confirmed to Stroud District Council that it began fire-testing Lithium-ion electric car batteries three years ago at a research unit at Burden Court Farm.

But the work on the site, on the outskirts of Tresham village, was without any planning negotiation. It subsequently became the subject of a retrospective request by Chalford-based Malcolm Hunt Design Ltd, on behalf of farmer and landlord Tom Hatherell.

With five people currently employed at the site, the technology firm had informed planners it uses the address as its main battery fire testing location – and that it hoped to quadruple operations and the workforce there to a target of 20 staff. 

For its "remoteness and isolation," Tresham was ideal for the work, the company said, which could be "dangerous".

An auto repair and storage business, which also had no paperwork, must also now quit the same site, which is 645 metres from the village boundary and borders a connecting lane to the A46.

In a visit report from SDC officer Rachel Brown, planners heard that information to demonstrate how the proposal could be essential to the maintenance or enhancement of a sustainable farming enterprise had been lacking, while "no meaningful pre-application discussions" had been held.

Ms Brown told planners: "The site falls within the Cotswolds National Landscape (formerly known as the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty)" and that it "seeks retrospective change of use of agricultural buildings for use as vehicle storage and repairs, industrial processes connected to battery testing."

The Council for the Protection of Rural England had said the bid was "very unsympathetic to the surrounding countryside", she reported, but Hillesley and Tresham Parish Council, for which the report noted there had been claims of a conflict of interest, did not object to the work and had suggested "more information needs to be provided in several areas".

Two objections had also suggested that there had been misrepresentations in the application and that the site was close to a complex of converted former agricultural barns surrounding the Grade II-listed Burden Court farmhouse.

Addressing whether the work could be deemed as diversification, she said: "Diversification can be described as any proposal which seeks to supplement farm income on working farms. Development which forms part of farm diversification could be supported provided the viability of the farm can be demonstrated, and that the proposal will support (not replace or prejudice) the farming activities on the rest of the farm."

But she added: "No information has been submitted about the existing farm enterprise. No substantive evidence, such as financial records or a business plan has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would be linked to a rural business or be diversification of an existing one. The proposal is an industrial use that does not assist a farming enterprise."

Furthermore, the site is within the Cotswolds National Landscape and falls within the "Wold tops" as designated within the adopted Stroud District Landscape Assessment SPG.

"This expansive upland with long distance open views has a sense of remoteness from built up areas. It is unified, being fairly simple in the pattern of land use types and has a well- managed character. There is a sense of prairie type landscape. Long distance view can be satisfying. The open visual character is sensitive to change where new development could have a significant visual impact," she said.

Fire risks and appropriate fire service consultation, impact on local wildlife and potential community impact from increased road traffic were also factors in the refusal.

The report added that SDC's Environmental Protection Manager (EHO) had also requested additional information regarding noise levels.

It added: "The information has been provided and the EHO reconsulted, however no response has been received. It is likely that there is a technical solution to address the noise levels and given the in-principle issues, this has not been pursued further.

● With global headquarters in Quedgeley, AIS has a workforce of more than 650 and offices in 12 locations around the world. Punchline has been unable to contact AIS Ltd by phone and has requested a statement on whether the business will appeal.