- Decision
- allowed, 18 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Samuel Watson
- Authority
- Warwick (West Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6002759
- Application reference
- W/25/0388
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Outline planning permission for up to 140 homes on safeguarded land (access only)
- Homes
- 140
- Site context
- settlement edge, agricultural land BMV
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- December 2024 NPPF (transitional)
- Determinative policies
- S3
- Development plan policies
- Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 DS20, DS21, BE1, NE4, Burton Green Neighbourhood Plan BG7, BG8, NE5
- Main issues
- safeguarded land
Summary
Outline permission for up to 140 homes on safeguarded land at the Coventry edge was allowed. The Council had not substantiated its single reason for refusal (prejudice to future comprehensive development), and its own officers had found the scheme compliant with DS20/DS21. The letter was issued the day after the new Framework took effect but runs the 2024 ¶11(d) tilted balance.
Issues and findings
- Safeguarded land: accord. The Inspector had "no reason to believe, given the nature of the development and its scale, that it would prejudice the comprehensive development of the safeguarded land" (DL ¶6), noting "the Council have not substantiated their reason for refusal" (DL ¶7).
- Character / BMV: modest harm. "the harm stemming from the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, and from character and appearance, [is] only modest" (DL ¶26).
- Emerging Green Belt re-inclusion. "only at a very early stage and so this plan has not been determinative" (DL ¶16).
Planning balance
The 2024 tilted balance: "the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the application of Framework Paragraph 11d indicates that permission should be granted" (DL ¶28). 140 homes with no 5YHLS got substantial weight (DL ¶27).
What made the difference
The Council abandoned its reason for refusal, and the land was already identified for future growth. The Framework version made no difference to the result, but this is an example of a letter dated 18 Aug 2026 that neither mentions nor applies the new Framework.
Transferable points
- A letter issued on 18 Aug 2026 still applied 2024 ¶11(d) without comment. It is useful evidence of how uneven the transition was (DL ¶28).
- Early-stage proposals to put land back into the Green Belt carry no weight (DL ¶16).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S3 | pass | letter applies "Framework Paragraph 11d" (2024 wording, "significantly and demonstrably"); no mention of the 17 Aug Framework (DL 28) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | 140 homes incl. affordable, no 5YHLS (DL 27) |
| DP3 | harm | limited | loss of rural character "only modest" given relationship to settlement and recent development (DL 14, 26) |
Key facts
- Site is safeguarded land (DS21) within area where DS20 directs growth; officers had found it policy-compliant
- Council did not substantiate its reason for refusal (prejudice to long-term planning)
- Council cannot show a five-year supply (figure not stated)
- Site being considered for return to Green Belt in an early-stage new plan; given no weight (DL 16)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.