# The Hill, Warwick Road, Stratford-upon-Avon - **Decision:** approved, 2 October 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Abbey Morris - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/01141/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Conversion and extension of a Victorian house in 5 flats to 3 dwellings, with a garage and car port (a net loss of 2 dwellings) - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, PDL, flood-zone-2, flood-zone-3, TPO, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e), GB7(1)(g) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.10, CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, CS.20, CS.5, CS.9, CS.12, CS.8, CS.26, CS.6, Stratford-upon-Avon NDP 2018 H1, BE1, BE2, BE10 - **Main issues:** Green Belt, grey belt, previously developed land, loss of dwellings, flood risk at the access - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, pdl-e-limb, sustainable-location-pass, flat-conversion, loss-of-housing, flood-safe-access, flood-risk, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, old-wording-slip, drafting-slip, small-scheme, stratford-relevant ## Summary Conversion of a large Victorian house, now 5 flats, into 3 houses with extensions and garaging, in the Green Belt just outside Stratford-upon-Avon. Granted under delegated powers on 2 October 2026. The officer found the scheme not inappropriate twice over: as grey belt under GB7(1)(g), and as redevelopment of previously developed land under GB7(1)(e). The loss of two dwellings was given neutral weight. The report is a scanned image and was read by OCR; page numbers are PDF pages. ## Issues and findings - **Development plan.** The site "lies outside, but immediately adjacent to, the Stratford-upon-Avon BUAB" (p.5), so it is open countryside for CS.15. The officer found the principle acceptable under CS.20 and NDP policies H1 and BE10 as reuse of a building with a lawful residential use (p.5), then gave CS.15, CS.16, AS.10 and H1 very limited weight under the standard Annex A paragraph (pp.6–7). - **Route.** The report quotes S5(1)(j) and S5(5), and concludes that "the application of NDMPS 5 is contingent on an assessment of the proposal in terms of Green Belt policy" (p.7). - **Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** "I consider that the application site would not strongly contribute to purposes A, B or D as listed above, and therefore would utilise Grey Belt" (p.8). No reasons are given, and the report does not discuss purpose (d), the setting and special character of historic towns, for a site at the edge of Stratford-upon-Avon. On the second half of the limb, harm to purpose (c) "is considered minor" and the scheme "would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the Green Belt across the area of the plan" (p.8). - **Unmet need, GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS.** "there is a demonstratable unmet need for market housing within the District" (p.8). The report does not reconcile this with a scheme that reduces the number of homes. - **Location, GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS.** "The property is set off Warwick Road, which is served by a well-lit and maintained footpath and cycleway into the centre of Stratford, under 1 kilometre away" (p.9). "future occupiers would not be reliant on private motor vehicle to access services and facilities" (p.9). - **Previously developed land, GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "I would consider the site as PDL given it is already occupied by a permanent structure. When considering the scale of the proposed extensions and alterations in relation to the existing large building, the development is not considered to result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (p.9). - **Loss of dwellings.** "Whilst the loss of the two dwellings is noted, it does not alter this conclusion and is therefore afforded neutral weight in the planning balance" (p.9). - **Flood risk, F7(2).** "access to the site, namely the junction off Warwick Road and part of the access drive, lie within Flood Zones 2 and 3" (p.11). The officer accepted a flood risk assessment and a Flood Evacuation Plan, noting that "the existing property is lawful for 5 dwellings" (p.11). The sequential test is mentioned only in the report's quotation of F4. ## Planning balance None in terms. Having found the scheme not inappropriate, the report does not run the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance it had quoted. The conclusion is two sentences: "The proposed application is considered to conform with CS.20 of the Development Plan and NDMP GB7 of the National Planning Policy Framework. I can find no material considerations that warrant an alternative approach" (p.13). ## What made the difference The building already exists and is already in residential use. Extensions "largely within the footprint of the existing building" (p.8) at a site under 1 km from the town centre on a lit footway raised no objection, and nobody objected. GB7(1)(e) alone would have decided the Green Belt question; the grey belt analysis was not needed. ## Transferable points - SDC ran GB7(1)(g) and GB7(1)(e) together for the same scheme (pp.8–9). The categories in GB7(1) are alternatives; one pass is enough. - Grey belt was found in a single sentence for land adjoining the district's main town, with no parcel, study or purpose-by-purpose reasoning (p.8). SDC's village-edge reports at least give a stock paragraph of reasons (stratford-26-00617-PIP). - GB7(1)(g)(ii) was passed on the district's housing shortfall for a scheme that removes two dwellings from the stock (pp.8–9). - A net loss of dwellings was given neutral weight despite a 2.21-year supply (p.9). - An access in Flood Zones 2 and 3 was accepted on an evacuation plan and the existing lawful use, under F7(2) (p.11). - Old wording: the Golden Rules are said to be "set out in p.156 and 17" (p.9), which are paragraph numbers of the December 2024 Framework. The slip is incidental; the limb was not engaged. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** site is previously developed land "given it is already occupied by a permanent structure"; extensions "not considered to result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (p.9); the report writes "GB7(e)" - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** grey belt found in one sentence with no reasons, for a site adjoining the boundary of Stratford-upon-Avon (p.8); purposes (c) and (e) then tested for the "fundamentally undermine" limb - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** the 2.21-year supply taken as unmet need for market housing (p.8), although the scheme reduces the number of dwellings from 5 to 3 - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** "a well-lit and maintained footpath and cycleway into the centre of Stratford, under 1 kilometre away" (p.9) - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** not major development; the report refers to the Golden Rules by 2024 paragraph numbers ("p.156 and 17") (p.9) - **HO7: neutral.** loss of two dwellings "afforded neutral weight in the planning balance" (p.9) - **F7(2): pass.** the access from Warwick Road and part of the drive are in Flood Zones 2 and 3; flood risk assessment and Flood Evacuation Plan accepted (p.11); sequential test (F5) not applied - **S6: not-engaged.** neighbourhood plan made December 2018 (p.7) - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** CS.15, CS.16, AS.10 (p.6), CS.10 (p.7) and NDP H1 (p.7) given very limited weight; CS.5, CS.9 and CS.12 treated as materially consistent (p.9) ## Key facts - Victorian red-brick Gothic house of 1855, "of high architectural merit", not listed and not in a conservation area; in 5 flats and currently empty - 5 flats become 3 houses, a net loss of 2 dwellings in a district with a 2.21-year supply; the loss was given neutral weight - Outside but immediately adjoining the Stratford-upon-Avon Built-Up Area Boundary; open countryside for CS.15 - Second-floor extensions across the width of the building; existing garages replaced by a double garage and a four-bay cart hovel at the front - House in Flood Zone 1; the Warwick Road junction and part of the drive in Flood Zones 2 and 3; Flood Evacuation Plan secured by condition - Trees covered by group Tree Preservation Orders; tree protection plan required before work starts - No third-party comments; Town Council made no representation; the county highway authority provided no comments - CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) estimated at £9,300 on 124 sqm of new floorspace - The report header cites "National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024 (Updated 2026)" ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/1a8f92ea-73fa-c38a-3464-08deac20d12c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01141-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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.