Which Stratford Core Strategy policies keep their weight under the 2026 NPPF

Proposals for development will be required to demonstrate that, dependent on their scale, use and location, measures are included that mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Core Strategy, Policy CS.2(A)

Policy CS.2 and SPD Parts D, Q and V support this stance and are therefore considered to be materially consistent with the NPPF.

Earlswood, 26/01614/FUL, officer report p.5

Held materially consistent in 15 reports: Pillerton Priors, 26/01894/PIP, Tanworth-in-Arden, 26/00918/PIP, Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, Welford-on-Avon, 26/00772/PIP, Earlswood, 26/01542/FUL, Stretton-on-Fosse, 26/01687/FUL, Fenny Compton, 26/01801/FUL, Kings Coughton, 26/01447/FUL, Ladbroke, 26/01660/OUT, Long Marston, 26/01906/PIP, Alcester, 26/01376/FUL, Stratford-upon-Avon, 26/01588/PIP, Moreton Morrell, 26/01558/FUL, Priors Hardwick, 26/00898/FUL, Ilmington, 26/01399/PIP.

All development proposals will take into account, dependent on their scale, use and location, the predicted impact of climate change on the District's water environment.

Core Strategy, Policy CS.4

Water Environment and Flood Risk Policy CS.4 of the Core Strategy is materially consistent with the NPPF because it seeks to direct development away from areas at highest risk of flooding, ensure that flood risk is properly assessed, and require suitable drainage measures to avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere.

Ladbroke, 26/01660/OUT, officer report p.8

Held materially consistent in 15 reports: Pillerton Priors, 26/01894/PIP, Tanworth-in-Arden, 26/00918/PIP, Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, Welford-on-Avon, 26/00772/PIP, Earlswood, 26/01542/FUL, Stretton-on-Fosse, 26/01687/FUL, Fenny Compton, 26/01801/FUL, Kings Coughton, 26/01447/FUL, Ladbroke, 26/01660/OUT, Long Marston, 26/01906/PIP, Alcester, 26/01376/FUL, Stratford-upon-Avon, 26/01588/PIP, Moreton Morrell, 26/01558/FUL, Earlswood (Hockley Heath), 26/01458/FUL, Ilmington, 26/01399/PIP.

The landscape character and quality of the District will be maintained by ensuring that development takes place in a manner that minimises and mitigates its impact and, where possible, incorporates measures to enhance the landscape.

Core Strategy, Policy CS.5

When evaluating the requirements of the NPPF in respect to conserving, enhancing, protecting and achieving well designed places, I am satisfied that Core Strategy Policies, in this case CS.5, CS.9 and CS.12, are materially consistent with the requirements of the NPPF.

Stratford-upon-Avon, 26/01141/FUL, officer report p.9

Other reports rely on CS.5 against a scheme without reducing its weight. At Ladbroke the officer identified "Policy conflicts with CS.5 and CS.9 of the Core Strategy in respect of character and landscape harm" and gave that harm significant weight (Ladbroke, 26/01660/OUT, p.12). At Pillerton Priors a scheme "would not accord with NDMPs DP3 and N2 and Policies CS.5 and CS.9 of the Core Strategy" (Pillerton Priors, 26/01894/PIP, p.12).

Development will be expected to contribute towards a resilient ecological network throughout the District that supports ecosystems and provides ecological security for wildlife, people, the economy and tourism.

Core Strategy, Policy CS.6

Accordingly, I consider that Policy CS.6 of the Core Strategy is materially consistent with the relevant biodiversity and ecological protection requirements of the Framework.

Pillerton Priors, 26/01894/PIP, officer report p.15

Held materially consistent in 16 reports: Pillerton Priors, 26/01894/PIP, Tanworth-in-Arden, 26/00918/PIP, Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, Welford-on-Avon, 26/00772/PIP, Earlswood, 26/01542/FUL, Stretton-on-Fosse, 26/01687/FUL, Fenny Compton, 26/01801/FUL, Kings Coughton, 26/01447/FUL, Ladbroke, 26/01660/OUT, Long Marston, 26/01906/PIP, Alcester, 26/01376/FUL, Stratford-upon-Avon, 26/01588/PIP, Moreton Morrell, 26/01558/FUL, Earlswood (Hockley Heath), 26/01458/FUL, Priors Hardwick, 26/00898/FUL, Ilmington, 26/01399/PIP.

All forms of development will improve the quality of the public realm and enhance the sense of place, reflecting the character and distinctiveness of the locality.

Core Strategy, Policy CS.9(A)

I am satisfied that Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy is consistent with both L2(d) and DP3.

Earlswood, 26/01614/FUL, officer report p.4

On design, see also the Hill, Warwick Road report quoted under CS.5 (Stratford-upon-Avon, 26/01141/FUL, p.9). On residential amenity, most reports use a standard sentence: CS.9 "is materially consistent with NDMP L2".

Held materially consistent with L2 (amenity) in 15 reports: Pillerton Priors, 26/01894/PIP, Tanworth-in-Arden, 26/00918/PIP, Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, Welford-on-Avon, 26/00772/PIP, Earlswood, 26/01542/FUL, Stretton-on-Fosse, 26/01687/FUL, Fenny Compton, 26/01801/FUL, Kings Coughton, 26/01447/FUL, Ladbroke, 26/01660/OUT, Long Marston, 26/01906/PIP, Alcester, 26/01376/FUL, Stratford-upon-Avon, 26/01588/PIP, Earlswood (Hockley Heath), 26/01458/FUL, Priors Hardwick, 26/00898/FUL, Ilmington, 26/01399/PIP.

The high landscape quality of the Special Landscape Areas, including their associated historic and cultural features, will be protected by resisting development proposals that would have a harmful effect on their distinctive character and appearance

Core Strategy, Policy CS.12

Held materially consistent, with CS.5 and CS.9, in the Hill, Warwick Road report (Stratford-upon-Avon, 26/01141/FUL, p.9). At Tanworth-in-Arden the officer found harm that "conflicts with Core Strategy Policies CS.5, CS.9 and CS.12 and NDP Policy BE1" and weighed it against the scheme (Tanworth-in-Arden, 26/00918/PIP, p.20).

The Council's reports usually call CS.8 materially inconsistent, because the new Framework's HE5 sets out how effects on heritage assets should be assessed.

Considering that NDMP HE5 (Assessing effects on heritage assets) provides a new set of criteria for assessments of the potential effects on development proposals on the significance of heritage assets which is not required within CS.8 of the CS and BE7 of the NDP, I consider that CS.8 and BE7 are materially inconsistent with the NDMPs of the Framework.

Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, officer report p.15

But the test CS.8 actually applies to less than substantial harm is the Framework's test:

Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm must be justified and weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

Core Strategy, Policy CS.8(B)

Where a development proposal would harm the significance of a designated heritage asset the effect on the asset and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal.

NPPF, HE6(4)

Only the label ("less than substantial") is older. HE5 adds detail to how effects are assessed; it does not contradict CS.8's weighing. A report that gives CS.8 limited weight should say which words of it conflict with the Framework.

Held materially inconsistent, or not aligned, in 9 reports: Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, Kings Coughton, 26/01447/FUL, Long Marston, 26/01906/PIP, Upper Quinton, 26/00922/FUL, Alcester, 26/01376/FUL, Stratford-upon-Avon, 26/01588/PIP, Earlswood (Hockley Heath), 26/01458/FUL, Priors Hardwick, 26/00898/FUL, Ilmington, 26/01399/PIP.

The purposes of the Green Belt will be upheld by resisting inappropriate development within it, except in cases where very special circumstances are justified in accordance with the provisions of national policy.

Core Strategy, Policy CS.10

Housing reports call CS.10 materially inconsistent because it predates grey belt and the Golden Rules (GB7, GB8). Other reports say it aligns:

These elements of GB6 and GB7 are considered to be materially consistent with policy CS.10 of the Core Strategy.

Earlswood, 26/01614/FUL, officer report p.3

Held materially inconsistent in 5 reports: Tanworth-in-Arden, 26/00918/PIP, Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, Stratford-upon-Avon, 26/01141/FUL, Earlswood, 26/01542/FUL, Kings Coughton, 26/01447/FUL.

The difference rarely matters: the Framework's GB6 to GB8 apply directly either way.

CS.22 is materially consistent with the requirements of the NPPF by being flexible to accommodate business needs not anticipated in the plan and therefore meeting the requirements of policy E2 (Meeting the Need for Business Land and Premises) in the NPPF.

Gaydon, 25/01765/FUL, officer report p.20

As CS.22 does not specifically plan for such development it needs to be considered as being not consistent in relation to these matters.

Gaydon, 25/01765/FUL, officer report p.20

"Such development" refers to the commercial development E2 gives substantial weight to, including proposals supporting the Industrial Strategy. The report holds CS.22 consistent in general and not consistent on that point.

These policies are split. Their amenity requirements are treated as consistent:

I am satisfied that Policy CS.9, AS.10 and CS.20 are materially consistent with NDMP L2 set out in the Framework

Moreton Morrell, 26/01558/FUL, officer report p.9

Their restrictions on where development may go are treated as inconsistent (see below).

On this basis, and having regard to the fact that the NDMPs in Chapter 4 of the NPPF allow for forms of development that would not be supported by Policies CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10 in principle, including where there is an evidenced unmet need, as highlighted in NDMP S5.1.j, I consider that these Core Strategy policies are materially inconsistent with the relevant NDMPs.

Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, officer report p.8

Given very limited weight in 12 reports: Pillerton Priors, 26/01894/PIP, Tanworth-in-Arden, 26/00918/PIP, Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, Welford-on-Avon, 26/00772/PIP, Stratford-upon-Avon, 26/01141/FUL, Earlswood, 26/01542/FUL, Ladbroke, 26/01660/OUT, Long Marston, 26/01906/PIP, Alcester, 26/01376/FUL, Stratford-upon-Avon, 26/01588/PIP, Earlswood (Hockley Heath), 26/01458/FUL, Priors Hardwick, 26/00898/FUL.

Policy CS.26 does not include the same express requirement to refuse development where severe adverse transport impacts would arise. I therefore consider that Policy CS.26 is materially inconsistent with the relevant requirements of the Framework and afford it very limited weight.

Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, officer report p.17

Held materially inconsistent in 14 reports: Pillerton Priors, 26/01894/PIP, Tanworth-in-Arden, 26/00918/PIP, Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, Welford-on-Avon, 26/00772/PIP, Earlswood, 26/01542/FUL, Fenny Compton, 26/01801/FUL, Kings Coughton, 26/01447/FUL, Ladbroke, 26/01660/OUT, Long Marston, 26/01906/PIP, Alcester, 26/01376/FUL, Stratford-upon-Avon, 26/01588/PIP, Earlswood (Hockley Heath), 26/01458/FUL, Priors Hardwick, 26/00898/FUL, Ilmington, 26/01399/PIP.

This concerns highway impacts. Whether a location is sustainable is a separate question, answered by the Framework's TR3 directly.