30 Hadrians Walk, Alcester

26/01376/FUL · Stratford-on-Avon District Council · officer (delegated) · decided 17 September 2026 · refused

Erection of 2no dwellings and associated external works (resubmission of planning application No:25/02296/FUL).

Cited in: 1. DP3(3) as a "should be refused" policy

Why this is cited. SDC applied the trigger here, and the note uses it as the benchmark. Flood policy F7 is a “should be refused” policy, so the officer treated the failure as engaging S4(2)(c) and refused. The report says the presumption “would not apply”, which goes further than the policy: S4(2)(c) makes the benefits “likely” to be substantially outweighed. The point of section 1 is that a design conflict (DP3(3)) is the same kind of policy and should be treated the same way.

Key points

The site is partly in flood zones 2 and 3: "with the western part of the site falling into Flood Zones 2 and 3" (p.8). "NDMP F7 is explicit that development should be refused unless all of the requirements of NDMP F7 are addressed" (p.9).
The officer applied S4(2)(c): "the proposal would fail against NDMP F7, and the proposal would fall into one of the specific reasons to refuse an application with the framework … Therefore the presumption in favour of development would not apply" (p.3). S4(2)(c) makes the benefits "likely to be substantially outweighed"; it does not switch the presumption off.
The decision notice also records that insufficient information was provided on the habitat baseline of the site.

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.