- Decision
- approved, 11 September 2026
- Decided by
- Council planning committee: SDC Planning Committee 9 Sep 2026 (9 for, 2 abstentions); case officer Ian Guffick
- Authority
- Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)
- Application reference
- 26/00918/PIP
- Procedure
- committee
- Development
- Permission in principle for 3 to 9 open-market dwellings on a 0.47 ha paddock
- Homes
- 9
- Site context
- green belt, washed over village, settlement edge, valued landscape
- 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.9, CS.12, CS.26, Tanworth-in-Arden NDP 2022 H3, BE1, NE1
- Main issues
- grey belt; sustainable location; weight to development plan; landscape
Summary
Permission in principle for 3 to 9 market homes on a paddock at the edge of Tanworth-in-Arden, a Category 4 village washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The officer treated the site as grey belt, found all four limbs of GB7(1)(g) met, and ran the S5(5) balance: limited to moderate landscape harm against substantial weight to housing with a 2.21-year supply. Committee granted 9–0, with 2 abstentions, on 9 September 2026. The decision notice is dated 11 September.
Issues and findings
- Weight to the development plan: Transitional(2), very limited weight. Because the 2026 decision-making policies "allow for forms of development that would not be supported by Policies CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10 in principle, including where there is an evidenced unmet need, as highlighted in NDMP S5.1.j, I consider that these Core Strategy policies are materially inconsistent with the relevant NDMPs" (Report p.8). CS.10 (Green Belt) was also given very limited weight as "materially inconsistent" with GB7/GB8 (p.11), as was CS.26 because it lacks TR6's "severe" test (p.16).
- S6: not engaged. The NDP was made in 2022 but "does not contain housing allocations to meet its identified housing requirement", so H3 was given very limited weight (p.8).
- Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS. "Tanworth-in-Arden is a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns. It therefore does not strongly contribute to purpose (a) or (b)" (p.12). For the "fundamentally undermine" limb the officer also tested purposes (c) and (e): encroachment was "minor" given the surrounding built form (p.13).
- Unmet need, GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS, on the 2.21-year figure (p.13).
- Sustainable location, GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS. "Pavements exist directly in front of the site on Butts Lane … a walk of approximately 400m … some sections of that walk do not benefit from pavements … Villagers appear to cope with this existing situation without any great trouble" (p.9). "Future occupants would not be solely reliant on the use of private motor vehicles, having regard to NDMP Policy TR3" (p.13).
- Landscape: harm, limited to moderate weight (Arden SLA; CS.5, CS.9, CS.12, NDP BE1) (p.15, p.20).
Planning balance
S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance, reached through GB7. Against: very limited weight to the conflicts with CS.15, CS.16, AS.10 and H3; very limited weight to the conflict with the SWLP; limited to moderate weight to landscape harm. For: substantial weight to up to 9 dwellings. The Interim Policy Position Statement's figure of "approximately 133 dwellings in the Tanworth neighbourhood area over the 5 year period" was cited as a further reason in favour (p.20). Limited weight to economic benefits. Conclusion: benefits "not … substantially outweighed" (p.20).
What made the difference
A continuous footway along the site frontage, a school next door and a 400 m walk to village services carried GB7(1)(g)(iii). The officer accepted short unfooted lengths through the historic core. Once the site passed GB7, labelling every locational policy "materially inconsistent" left only landscape harm to weigh against substantial housing weight. The report never asked whether a washed-over village is a "settlement" under Annex B, which excludes "villages which lie within and are defined as part of the Green Belt". Nothing in the result turned on that, because GB7 carried it. But the S5(1)(j) analysis the report ran first ("well-related to an existing settlement") is, on the definition, not available to a washed-over village.
Transferable points
- SDC officers treat a frontage footway plus roughly 400 m to village services as enough for GB7(1)(g)(iii). Short unfooted lengths on low-speed village roads were accepted because "villagers appear to cope" (p.9).
- SDC's standard line is that CS.15, CS.16, AS.10 and CS.10 are "materially inconsistent" with S5 and GB7 and carry very limited weight (pp.8, 11). Design (CS.9), flood (CS.4), ecology (CS.6) and climate (CS.2) policies are said to be "materially consistent" (e.g. CS.4 and CS.6 at pp.17–18). The report found no heritage harm and does not address CS.8.
- Grey belt: a village "some distance from large built-up areas and towns" was held not to contribute strongly to purposes (a) or (b) (p.12).
- The IPPS parish housing-need figure (133 homes for Tanworth over five years) is being used as a positive in the balance (p.20).
- Drafting slip: the GB7 conclusion refers to "the construction of 5 dwellings" on a 9-dwelling PIP (p.14). This looks like a template carried over from the Snitterfield report.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(g)(i) | pass | undeveloped paddock but Tanworth is "a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns", so no strong contribution to (a), (b) or (d); officer also tested (c) and (e) for the "fundamentally undermine" limb and found only minor encroachment | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | 2.21-year supply treated as evidenced unmet need for market housing | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | pass | footway along site frontage; village centre c.400 m, short unfooted sections in historic core; Category 4 LSV with primary school next door and a limited bus service; "not be solely reliant on the use of private motor vehicles" | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iv) | not-engaged | 0.47 ha, 9 dwellings max, under 1,000 sq m, not major, so no Golden Rules | |
| S5(1)(j) | pass | run first, before the officer turned to S5(5); site treated as well related to "the settlement of Tanworth-in-Arden" although the village is washed over by Green Belt | |
| S5(5) | pass | not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed | |
| Transitional(2) | conflict | very-limited | CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, CS.10, CS.26 and NDP H3 held "materially inconsistent" with the 2026 decision-making policies |
| S6 | not-engaged | NDP made 2022 but has no allocations meeting its requirement | |
| DM4 | neutral | very-limited | emerging SWLP DS.8/DS.12 conflict given very limited weight at Reg 19 |
| DP3 | harm | limited | limited to moderate landscape harm in the Arden Special Landscape Area; conflict with CS.5, CS.9, CS.12 and NDP BE1 |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | up to 9 dwellings against the district supply, and over 5% of the roughly 133 dwellings the Interim Policy Position Statement assigns to Tanworth over five years |
Key facts
- Council supply 2.21 years at 31 Mar 2025 (LHN 1,112 dpa)
- Footway along the whole site frontage on Butts Lane; about 400 m walk to the village centre, with short unfooted lengths in the historic core
- Site next to the village primary school; limited bus service to Solihull, Hockley Heath and Redditch
- Village is Category 4 LSV, washed over by Green Belt; SWLP Green Belt topic paper proposes to inset it
- 44 objections plus Parish Council and Ward Member objection; WCC Highways no objection
Related decisions
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.