Land off Jago Green, Snitterfield Lane, Snitterfield

Decision

approved, 10 September 2026

Decided by

Council planning committee: SDC Planning Committee 9 Sep 2026 (6 for, 3 abstentions); case officer Joshua Cooper

Authority

Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)

Application reference

26/00617/PIP

Procedure

committee

Development

Permission in principle for 1 to 5 open-market dwellings with a pedestrian and cycle link to Park Lane

Homes

5

Site context

green belt, washed over village, settlement edge, valued landscape, listed building setting, conservation area

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt accepted)

Housing land supply

2.21 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB7(1)(g), S5(5), Transitional(2)

Development plan policies

Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.10, CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, CS.5, CS.8, CS.9, CS.12, CS.26, Snitterfield NDP 2018 H1, BE1, BE3, BE7, NE4

Main issues

grey belt; sustainable location; character and landscape; heritage setting; previous appeal

Summary

Permission in principle for up to 5 market homes on a paddock behind linear frontage housing at the edge of Snitterfield. The village is washed over by Green Belt, and a 9-home scheme on the site was dismissed at appeal in 2019 on character grounds. The officer found the site grey belt, passed all of GB7(1)(g) and found "significant harm" to character, weighted substantial. The officer still concluded that the benefit of 5 homes was not "substantially outweighed". Committee granted 6–0, with 3 abstentions, on 9 September 2026. The notice is dated 10 September.

Issues and findings

• Weight to the development plan. CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10 were held "materially inconsistent with the relevant NDMPs" because S5(1)(j) allows development those policies would not (Report p.8). CS.10 was held materially inconsistent with GB7/GB8 (p.11). CS.8 and NDP BE7 were held materially inconsistent with HE5 because HE5 "provides a new set of criteria for assessments" (p.15). NDP H1 got very limited weight because S6 was not engaged: the plan was made in 2018 with no allocations (p.9).
• Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS. "Snitterfield is a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns. It therefore does not strongly contribute to purposes (a) or (b)" (p.12). For purpose (c), "the resultant harm would be limited and would not fundamentally undermine the Green Belt across the area of plan" (p.12).
• Sustainable location, GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS. "0.5 miles from the centre of the Snitterfield village, equating to a 15 minute walk" (p.9). "Although I consider that there is some harm that pedestrians will have to walk on the public highway, I do not consider this to be substantial, especially as there is good visibility in both directions, the speed limit is 30mph and there are some soft verges … the other existing houses on Jago Green also have to make the same journey on foot in the roadway … I therefore afford this harm, limited weight" (pp.9–10). The Update Report for the 9 September committee corrected the route: "the application proposes a footpath onto Park Lane, therefore the centre of the village and services can be reached entirely on made footpath and do not require any pedestrians to walk in the public highway" (minutes and Update Report p.5). "Whilst noting that the majority of journeys to Stratford-upon-Avon are likely to be undertaken by private vehicle, the journey would take around 10 minutes and therefore such trips would be relatively short in duration" (p.10).
• Character: significant harm, substantial weight. Relying on the 2019 appeal: "the arrangement of five dwellings within the application site would still result in a suburban form of development that would enclose existing residential development and weaken the existing relationship between those dwellings and the open countryside" (p.14). "I consider that the proposal would result in significant harm to the character of the area … In light of NDMP DP3 (3), I afford this harm substantial weight" (p.15).
• Heritage: no harm to the Grade II Pigeon Green House, 25 m from the site edge, or to the Conservation Area (p.15).

Planning balance

S5(5) balance, reached through GB7. Against: very limited weight to the policy conflicts; substantial weight to character and landscape harm. For: substantial weight to up to 5 dwellings; limited weight to economic benefits. "The benefits of approving the scheme would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (p.20). Substantial harm against substantial benefit was therefore resolved in favour of approval. That is the arithmetic of the "substantially outweighed" test.

What made the difference

GB7 took the site out of the very special circumstances test. After that, the S5(5) tilt meant that harm and benefit of equal weight produced an approval. The report did not treat DP3(3) as a refusal trigger under S5(2). DP3(3) says proposals "should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of this policy". S5(2) says benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed where a proposal fails "one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances". The officer cited DP3(3) only as a source of weight. A different outcome needed either that S5(2) route or a failure at GB7(1)(g)(iii). On location, the report first accepted about 100 m of walking in the carriageway, but the Update Report corrected this: with the proposed footpath link to Park Lane the whole route is on made footpath. The report also did not ask whether a washed-over village is a "settlement" under Annex B.

Transferable points

• On SDC's reading, "significant" character harm given substantial weight does not "substantially outweigh" substantial housing benefit under S5(5) (pp.15, 20). An objector needs the S5(2) refusal-policy route (for example DP3(3), HE6 or F5) or a GB7 limb failure.
• The report gave limited weight to about 100 m of walking in a 30 mph carriageway (pp.9–10), but the committee decided on the corrected basis in the Update Report: with the proposed Park Lane footpath, no walking in the highway is needed. This case is not authority for accepting walking in the carriageway.
• The officer accepted car trips to the main town as "relatively short" in duration (about 10 minutes) as a mitigating factor under TR3 (p.10).
• A 2019 appeal dismissal on character was followed on the harm finding but did not decide the outcome under the 2026 balance (p.14).
• Heritage policies CS.8 and NDP BE7 were labelled "materially inconsistent" with HE5 (p.15). This extends the Transitional(2) reasoning beyond the locational policies.

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Previous 9-dwelling full application refused 2018 and appeal dismissed 18 Jun 2019 (APP/J3720/W/18/3209676) on character; 9-dwelling PIP with 50% affordable (25/02708/PIP) refused 6 Mar 2026
• Officer found "significant harm" to character and gave it substantial weight, yet still recommended approval
• Site is a local non-statutory Ecosite (Totley Paddock) with GCN records nearby; WCC Ecology deferred PEA and BNG to technical details stage
• Village is Category 3 LSV, washed over by Green Belt; SWLP Green Belt topic paper proposes to inset it
• Update sheet corrected the report — with the proposed Park Lane footpath, services "can be reached entirely on made footpath"

Related decisions

• stratford-26-00918-PIP

Sources

• democracy.stratford.gov.uk
• democracy.stratford.gov.uk
• apps.stratford.gov.uk

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.