Land South of Elm Leys, Hunt Hall Lane, Welford-on-Avon

Decision

approved, 10 September 2026

Decided by

Council planning committee: SDC Planning Committee 9 Sep 2026 (unanimous); case officer Joseph Brooke

Authority

Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)

Application reference

26/00772/PIP

Procedure

committee

Development

Permission in principle for 1 to 4 open-market dwellings off a private single-track lane

Homes

4

Site context

settlement edge, open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.21 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j), TR3(1)(a), Transitional(2)

Development plan policies

Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, CS.5, CS.9, CS.26, Welford-on-Avon NDP 2017 HLU1, HLU6, HE5

Main issues

principle outside settlement; pedestrian access; landscape; highway

Summary

Permission in principle for up to 4 market homes on a paddock at the south-west edge of Welford-on-Avon (not Green Belt), reached along 200 m of private single-track lane with no footway. The officer ran S5(1)(j) on the 2.21-year supply. Pedestrian access was the main harm (moderate weight) and landscape harm was minor. Committee granted unanimously on 9 September 2026. The notice is dated 10 September.

Issues and findings

• Principle, S5(1)(j): PASS. "The Council can demonstrate 2.21 years of housing land supply and I am therefore satisfied that there is an evidenced unmet need" (Report p.6). The site "would read as a modest continuation of the existing settlement edge rather than a detached intrusion into the open countryside" (p.8).
• Development plan weight. CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10 were held materially inconsistent "including where there is an evidenced unmet need (as long as the development is either physically well related to an existing settlement or comprises major freight and logistics development)". The NDP was "made in 2017", so S6 was not engaged, and NDP HLU1 and HE5 were also held "materially inconsistent" and given very limited weight (p.6).
• Sustainable location, TR3: moderate harm. "Hunt Hall Lane is a private road … I acknowledge that it does not benefit from a pedestrian footway … noting that the lane is not suitable for all users, including those with mobility impairments, I find that the absence of dedicated pedestrian provision along this section would result in moderate harm, to which I afford moderate weight" (p.6). Mitigating factors: Category 2 LSV services at 700–900 m, buses 400 m away, and "access to the village by use of a private vehicle would take around 5 minutes" (p.7).
• Landscape: minor harm. "In light of NDMP DP3 (2), I afford this harm limited weight" (p.8).
• Highways. "Significant weight should be afforded to the fact that the Highway Authority has not objected to the principle", even though its requested conditions cannot attach to a PIP (p.10).

Planning balance

S5(1) "substantially outweighed" balance. Against: very limited weight to the plan and SWLP conflicts; limited weight to landscape; moderate weight to pedestrian access. For: substantial weight to 4 homes; limited weight to economic benefits. The benefits were "not … substantially outweighed" (p.13).

What made the difference

Outside the Green Belt, the S5(1)(j) gateway opened on the supply figure alone. A lane without a footway was treated as a weight in the balance (moderate), not as a gateway failure. S5(1)(j)(i) asks whether the site is "physically well-related" to a settlement, and TR3 is not a pass/fail limb there as it is in GB7(1)(g)(iii). Nothing short of a "should be refused" policy or a severe highway objection was likely to change the outcome.

Transferable points

• Outside the Green Belt, SDC treats absent pedestrian provision on the access lane as moderate harm in the S5 balance, not as a reason to refuse (p.6).
• "Car journey is short" (5 minutes to the village) is again used to reduce sustainability harm (p.7). The Snitterfield report does the same.
• NDP settlement-boundary policies in plans made more than five years ago (HLU1, HE5) are routinely labelled "materially inconsistent" and given very limited weight (p.6).
• Objectors argued that the assessment on file "rests on a test that has since been revoked" (11(d)) and that every consultee response predated the new Framework. The committee report already applied S5, and the update sheet kept the recommendation without re-consulting (Update sheet pp.3–4, annexed to the 9 Sep minutes).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Access is a private, unadopted single-track lane (Hunt Hall Lane) with no footway for about 200 m
• School and play area about 700 m, shop 800 m, pub and hall 900 m, bus stop 400 m on Barton Road
• Parish Council said the land is Grade 2 (BMV); the report does not address agricultural land quality
• A sister PIP on the adjoining parcel (26/01674/PIP) was pending, with objectors raising cumulative effects and priority-habitat evidence
• Objectors said on the update sheet that the assessment on file "rests on a test that has since been revoked" (11(d)); consultee responses were not refreshed after 17 Aug

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.