Church View, Back Street, Ilmington

26/01399/PIP · Stratford-on-Avon District Council · officer (delegated) · decided 28 August 2026 · refused

Permission in principle for a new dwelling with associated driveway to rear garden, beside listed buildings in the Ilmington Conservation Area.

Planning record

Cited in: 2. Heritage harm at Forest Farm; 3. The reason given for discounting CS.8

Why this is cited. This is the heritage method section 2 uses as the benchmark: the officer weighed the harm against the public benefits on its own terms and refused. It is also cited in section 3 because it used the same wording as Snitterfield and Forest Farm to declare CS.8 materially inconsistent, without identifying which part of the policy actually conflicts with the Framework.

Key points

Supply: "the Council can demonstrate 2.21 years" (p.5) of housing land supply.
CS.8: "I consider that CS.8 and HA.1 are materially inconsistent with the NDMPs of the Framework" (p.5). The refusal still relies on it: "Since the proposal conflicts with Core Strategy Policies CS.8 and NDP policy HA.1" (p.11).
Weighing: "the provision of one dwelling is considered to be a modest benefit in the scheme of things" (p.10).
Result: "On balance, I find the public benefits identified would not be enough to outweigh the harm caused to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area or the setting of the adjacent listed buildings or the non-designated heritage asset, in this instance" (p.11).
The report uses the 2024 wording: "I attribute great weight to this as required by the NPPF" (p.10).

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.