Land off Jago Green, Snitterfield Lane, Snitterfield

26/00617/PIP · Stratford-on-Avon District Council · Planning Committee, 9 September 2026 · notice 10 September 2026 · granted

Permission in principle for a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5 dwellings, including pedestrian access to Park Lane, on open countryside adjacent to the built-up area boundary. The village is washed over by the Green Belt; the report found the scheme not inappropriate under GB7.

Planning record · Committee report · Minutes and Update Report

Cited in: 1. DP3(3) as a "should be refused" policy; 3. The reason given for discounting CS.8; 5. Walking routes and stations

Why this is cited. The mistake: the report found “significant harm to the character of the area” in conflict with local design and landscape policies but used DP3(3) only as a source of weight, never asking whether the conflict had clear justification. It also ran the S5(1)(j) test for a Green Belt site before turning to GB7, and declared CS.8 materially inconsistent without saying which part conflicts. What should have happened: if there was no clear justification, the benefits should have been treated as likely to be substantially outweighed (S5(2), which S5(5) applies in the Green Belt), with the report saying whether anything displaced that; and CS.8, whose part B already requires a heritage assessment, keeps its weight except for any part that actually conflicts. The walking-in-the-road point in the first report was a factual correction, not a method error: the Update Report explained that the application proposes a footpath onto Park Lane.

Key points

Character: "I consider that the proposal would result in significant harm to the character of the area" (p.15); the scheme "would not accord with Policies CS.5, CS.9 and CS.12 of the Core Strategy and NDP Policies BE1, BE3 and NE4" (p.15); "In light of NDMP DP3 (3), I afford this harm substantial weight" (p.15).
Route: the report applied "NDMP S5.1, Part J (Principle of development outside settlements)" (p.9) before turning to GB7.
The report quotes S5(5) including "decision-making policies in this Framework, and applying paragraph 2 of this policy" (p.10), but its conclusion does not apply S5(2): "I conclude that the benefits of approving the scheme would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (p.20).
CS.8: HE5 "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" (p.15). The report later finds "the development would accord with NDMPs HE5 and HE6 of the Framework and Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy" (p.16).
Walking route: the report accepted "some harm that pedestrians will have to walk on the public highway" (p.9). The Update Report for the 9 September committee corrected this, because "the application proposes a footpath onto Park Lane": "the centre of the village and services can be reached entirely on made footpath and do not require any pedestrians to walk in the public highway" (minutes and Update Report, p.5).

Quotations are from the officer report, decision notice or appeal decision letter, with page (p.) or paragraph (¶) numbers. Read the decision itself for the full reasoning.

Summarised for the note on Stratford decisions under the August 2026 NPPF. Not legal advice. Back to the note.