144 Malthouse Lane, Earlswood

26/01542/FUL · Stratford-on-Avon District Council · officer (delegated) · decided 2 October 2026 · refused

A self-build detached house in the rear garden of a bungalow, in the Green Belt.

Cited in: 4. Location shortcuts in the Green Belt

Why this is cited. The mistake: for a Green Belt site in Earlswood the report set out S4 and tested the scheme against L2(1)(d), policies for sites “within settlements”, and one of the two reasons for refusal rests on L2(1)(d). It does not mention the Annex B definition, which the Ardencroft report had applied to a site in the same village eight days earlier. What should have happened: a village washed over by the Green Belt is not a settlement as the Framework defines it, so the scheme should have been assessed under GB6 and GB7 and then the S5(5) balance. The other reason for refusal, harm to character, does not depend on L2(1)(d).

Key points

Site: "The application site is within the BUAB of Earlswood" (p.3); and "The application site is located within the West Midlands Green Belt" (p.7).
S4: the report sets out that "development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (p.4).
L2(1)(d): quoted as being about "Creating additional homes or floorspace within settlements" (p.5). The report finds that "the application fails to accord with NDMP L2 (1) (d) parts i and ii" (p.6).
The decision notice gives that as the second of two reasons for refusal: "The application fails to accord with NDMP L2 (1) (d) parts i and ii as the proposal is not considered to be consistent with the existing street scene" (decision notice, p.1).
The report does not mention the Annex B definition of a settlement.
Conclusion: "Having regard to NDMPs S5 and GB7 of the NPPF, the development is appropriate development within the Green Belt" (p.13).

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.