# Land at Banbury Road (B4100), Gaydon

- **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
- **Tags:** s5-1-i-allocation, s5-1-j, e2-substantial-weight, settlement-definition-allocated-land, large-scheme, stratford-relevant

## 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
- **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 weight).** 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 weight).** landscape and visual change on an allocated site
- **N2(1)(b): harm (very-limited weight).** 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
- https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/8756d135-c153-c6e2-10f5-08ddc92b8e65

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-25-01765-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.