- Decision
- approved, 17 September 2026
- Decided by
- Council officer (delegated): Case officer Neil Hempstead
- Authority
- Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)
- Application reference
- 25/01765/FUL
- Procedure
- delegated
- Development
- About 11 ha of B2/B8/E(g)(iii) employment units on part of the Core Strategy GLH allocation reserved for JLR expansion, with S106
- Site context
- open countryside, agricultural land BMV
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(i), S5(1)(j), E2, E3
- Development plan policies
- Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.22, Proposal GLH, AS.11
- Main issues
- employment need; allocation restriction; landscape; BMV
Summary
Speculative B2/B8 employment units on about 11 ha of the Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath allocation, which the Core Strategy reserves for JLR expansion. Granted under delegated powers on 17 September 2026 subject to a S106. The report applies S5(1)(i) and (j) and gives the economic benefits substantial weight under E2.
Issues and findings
- Settlement status. "The definition refers to … land which is allocated or has permission for development which will form part of the built-up area once development is complete … I could therefore reasonably conclude that the site is within a settlement. However … I have taken a precautionary approach and adopted the position that the site is located outside of a settlement" (Report p.20).
- S5 routes. S5(1)(i), allocated land, applies even though the allocation is restricted to JLR-related uses. S5(1)(j), unmet need, is also met, including the freight and logistics limb (pp.19–20).
- Development plan consistency. "NPPF Policy E2 now requires substantial weight to be given to the economic benefits … As CS.22 does not specifically plan for such development it needs to be considered as being not consistent in relation to these matters" (p.20).
- Weight. "In light of the general aim of NPPF S5 and E2 and E3 … I give these matters substantial weight in the overall planning balance" (p.23).
Planning balance
Substantial weight to economic benefits; moderate weight to BNG; limited weight to open space, BREEAM and highway extras. Against: limited weight to landscape and very limited weight to BMV loss. Benefits "outweigh the specifically identified harm", and the report concludes accordance with the plan as a whole (p.57).
What made the difference
The site is allocated, if for a restricted occupier, and E2 now requires substantial weight to economic benefits. The S5(1)(i) and (j) routes made the JLR-only restriction a matter of weight, not principle.
Transferable points
- The Annex B "settlement" definition expressly includes allocated land that will form part of the built-up area. SDC considered but did not adopt the argument that an allocated edge site is therefore "within a settlement" (p.20).
- A pre-2026 development plan policy (CS.22) was held "not consistent" with E2 because it does not plan for Industrial Strategy-type growth (p.20).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1)(i) | pass | land allocated for employment in the development plan, albeit restricted to JLR-related uses | |
| S5(1)(j) | pass | evidenced unmet need for employment land; well-related to Gaydon Lighthorne Heath; part (ii) freight and logistics also met | |
| E2 | benefit | substantial | 500–842 jobs, £38m capex, GVA about £21.9m a year; CS.22 held "not consistent" with E2 on Industrial Strategy-type needs |
| DP3 | harm | limited | landscape and visual change on an allocated site |
| N2(1)(b) | harm | very-limited | loss of some Grade 3a BMV, discounted because allocated |
Key facts
- Officer considered the Annex B settlement definition (allocated or permitted land forming part of the built-up area) and could have treated the site as within a settlement, but took a "precautionary approach" and applied S5
- The applicant's earlier 11(d) argument became moot on the new Framework; CS.22 "not consistent" with E2 on strategic employment needs
- Report dated 30 Jul 2026, decision 17 Sep 2026; the report cites NPPF 2026 throughout, so it was updated after 17 Aug
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.