- Decision
- refused, 11 September 2026
- Decided by
- Council officer (delegated): Case officer Lindsey Young
- Authority
- Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)
- Application reference
- 26/01310/FUL
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Detached garage forward of the principal elevation and more than 5 m from the dwelling; conversion of existing garage
- Site context
- green belt, washed over village, valued landscape
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB6(1), GB6(2), GB7(1)(b), L2(1)(d)
- Development plan policies
- Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.9, CS.10, CS.12, CS.20, Tanworth-in-Arden NDP BE1
- Main issues
- Green Belt inappropriateness; openness; character
Summary
A householder refusal in the washed-over Green Belt at Tanworth-in-Arden. A detached garage in the front garden, more than 5 m from the house, was held to be inappropriate development: it is not an "extension or alteration" under GB7(1)(b). It harmed openness, and no very special circumstances were shown. It was also refused on streetscene character under L2(1)(d) and CS.9. Refused under delegated powers on 11 September 2026.
Issues and findings
- GB6 and GB7: inappropriate. "A detached garage positioned forward of the principal elevation does not fall within any of the exceptions set out in policies GB.6 and GB.7 of the NPPF, nor does it represent a proportionate extension or alteration to an existing building. Accordingly, the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt" (Report p.3).
- Appeal precedent. Field Gate House, Broad Lane (6003555, 27 Apr 2026, garage dismissed) "is afforded significant weight". Spinney Cottage, Bearley (6001085, allowed) was distinguished on its site circumstances (pp.3–4).
- Openness. "Spatial and visual harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (p.4).
- Plan weight. CS.10 "broadly aligns" with GB6 and GB7 (p.2), and the refusal says CS.10 "aligns with the aforementioned national policies" (Notice reason 1).
Planning balance
GB6(2) very special circumstances test. Definitional and openness harm, with no weighing factors put forward. Refused.
What made the difference
The building was detached and forward of the house, so it could not be read as an extension under GB7(1)(b). A local appeal on the same road pointed the same way.
Transferable points
- SDC treats CS.10 as consistent with GB6 and GB7 for householder and outbuilding cases (p.2). Yet in housing cases SDC calls CS.10 "materially inconsistent" (stratford-26-00918-PIP p.11). CS.10's weight depends on the type of development.
- Detached outbuildings in the Green Belt are assessed as new buildings, not as extensions, when separated from the dwelling. The 5 m guide under CS.10 is applied (p.3).
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)(b) | fail | a detached garage forward of the house is not an extension or alteration of the building; no GB7 category applies | |
| GB6(2) | fail | substantial | inappropriate development; spatial and visual harm to openness; no very special circumstances |
| L2(1)(d) | fail | incongruous garage in spacious landscaped frontage; cited in refusal reason 2 with CS.9 | |
| Transitional(2) | accord | CS.10 said to "broadly align" with GB6/GB7 (contrast housing cases where CS.10 was called materially inconsistent) |
Key facts
- Garage over 5 m from the dwelling and forward of the principal elevation; the CS.10 guidance expects curtilage buildings within 5 m
- Followed appeal 6003555 (Field Gate House, Broad Lane, 27 Apr 2026, garage dismissed); distinguished appeal 6001085 (Spinney Cottage, Bearley, garage allowed)
- No Class E fallback because the building is forward of the principal elevation
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.