# Land adjoining Coverwell Farm, Pillerton Hersey - **Decision:** refused, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Amy Flute (signed 17 Aug 2026) - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 25/01271/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Change of use of land to 7 travelling showpersons plots with hardstanding - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, valued-landscape, conservation-area, listed-building-setting, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** TR3(1)(a), F5, HE6(4), HO12 - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.4, CS.5, CS.8, CS.9, CS.12, CS.15, CS.21, CS.26, AS.10 - **Main issues:** sustainable location, flood sequential test, heritage, landscape, traveller need - **Tags:** transitional, old-wording-slip, decided-on-commencement-day, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, travellers, heritage-harm, flood-sequential-test, stratford-relevant ## Summary Seven travelling showpeople yards on a greenfield ridge-and-furrow field between Pillerton Hersey and Pillerton Priors, refused under delegated powers on 17 August 2026 for seven reasons. The report and notice were signed on the day the 2026 Framework took effect. Both apply the December 2024 NPPF and its 11(d) tilted balance throughout. This is recorded as a transitional case. ## Issues and findings - **Framework applied.** The report lists "National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024 (revised 2025)" (Report p.2) and concludes that the harm "would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal and the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply" (p.38). The notice's note refers to "paragraph 39 of the National Planning Policy Framework December 2024". - **Need.** The 2026 GTAA "identifies that there is a need for an additional 20 permanent Travelling Showpeople plots across Warwick and Stratford District" (p.13). "I afford the provision of 7 travelling showpeople yards very significant weight … due to the Council's inability to demonstrate a 5-year supply of plots" (p.36). - **Location (now TR3): fail, significant weight.** "Due to the location of this site there would be a complete reliance on the car. I consider that the level of harm due to the unsustainable location would be significant" (p.37). Refusal reason 1: no pavements on Kineton Road, and the bus "cannot be accessed safely on foot". - **Flood: fail**, "a strong reason for refusal in terms of NPPF 11(d)" (p.37). - **Heritage: significant weight**; public benefits do not outweigh (p.38). ## Planning balance Old 11(d)(ii): very significant weight to the plots against significant weight each to location, flood, highway, landscape and heritage harm. Refused. ## What made the difference Accumulated, individually significant harms: an unsafe walking route with total car dependence, a failed flood sequential test, and heritage and landscape harm. Under the 2026 Framework the case would run through S5(1)(g), which admits traveller need only where "it meets the criteria in policy HO12". The outcome would very likely be the same, but the reasoning has not been re-done. ## Transferable points - SDC issued at least one delegated decision dated 17 August 2026 that applied the superseded Framework. Any appeal will be decided under the 2026 Framework, and the parties will need to address S5(1)(g), HO12 and TR3 afresh. - Location facts that SDC treats as decisive for a rural site: no pavement on the connecting road, services only in villages further away, and a bus "limited" and unreachable safely on foot (refusal reason 1). ## Policy findings - **TR3(1)(a): fail (significant weight).** officer found "complete reliance on the car"; no pavements on Kineton Road; nearest services at Ettington or Kineton; decided as 2024 NPPF para 115 and PPTS para 25/26 - **F5: fail (significant weight).** sequential test inadequate; decided as 2024 NPPF paras 170–181 and treated as a "strong reason for refusal" under old 11(d)(i) - **HE6(4): harm (significant weight).** loss of ridge and furrow (non-designated) and less than substantial harm to Pillerton Hersey CA and Grade II* church setting; decided as 2024 NPPF 212–221 - **HO12: benefit (significant weight).** 7 yards given "very significant weight"; no 5-year supply of showperson plots; 2026 GTAA need 14 plots in Stratford 2025–50 (9 in 2025–30) - **DP3: harm (significant weight).** encroachment into Feldon SLA, reduced gap between the two Pillertons ## Key facts - Decision notice and report both dated 17 Aug 2026, the day the 2026 Framework took effect, but decided wholly under NPPF Dec 2024 (11(d) tilted balance) and PPTS Dec 2024 - No five-year supply of showperson plots; GTAA 2026 need for 20 plots across South Warwickshire, 14 in Stratford - Seven refusal reasons (location, flood, heritage, highway, landscape, amenity, PRoW) ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/59e1e438-1a74-c6a3-fa97-08dda288eb6e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-25-01271-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.