# 30 Hadrians Walk, Alcester - **Decision:** refused, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Sarah Leach - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/01376/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Erection of 2 dwellings in the garden of an existing house (resubmission of 25/02296/FUL) - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, flood-zone-2, flood-zone-3, TPO, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(2)(c), F7, F5, F6 - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.4, CS.6, CS.15, AS.2 - **Main issues:** flood risk, sequential test, biodiversity - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, flood-f7, flood-sequential-test, small-scheme, stratford-relevant ## Summary Two houses in a garden inside Alcester's settlement boundary, with the dwellings placed in Flood Zones 2 and 3. Refused under delegated powers on 17 September 2026. This is the clearest SDC example so far of the S4(2)(c) mechanism: failure of a national policy that says development "should be refused" (F7, with F5 and F6) makes the benefits "likely to be substantially outweighed", despite substantial weight to housing. ## Issues and findings - **S4(2)(c) framing.** "In regard to S4(2)(C) … the proposal would fail against NDMP F7, and the proposal would fall into one of the specific reasons to refuse an application with the framework … Therefore the presumption in favour of development would not apply" (Report p.3). - **F7: fail.** "NDMP F7 is explicit that development should be refused unless all of the requirements of NDMP F7 are addressed. This is a specific circumstance in which the Framework advises that a planning application should be refused" (p.9). The layout places the dwellings in FZ2/3 when FZ1 land is available within the site (p.10). The land-level changes "would as a matter of fact result in a worsening of flood risk off site" (p.11). - **F5: fail.** The applicant suggested the sequential test "should relate to other land designations … such as the Green Belt. This is a wholly incorrect approach to the sequential test as required under NDMP F5" (p.12). - **Ecology.** With no habitat baseline, BNG could not be assessed (N2, CS.6). Significant adverse weight. ## Planning balance S4 was run twice. First, S4(2)(c) is triggered by the F7 failure. Second, "notwithstanding", an express weighing: substantial adverse weight to flood harm and significant weight to ecology, against substantial weight to 2 homes and limited weight to the economy and climate measures. "The adverse effects of the development substantially outweigh the benefits" (pp.14–15). ## What made the difference F7 contains its own "should be refused" instruction. That converts a flood failure into a presumption-defeating matter under S4(2)(c), whatever the housing shortfall. ## Transferable points - SDC applies S4(2)(c) as a trigger. Once a "should be refused" policy (here F7) fails, the benefits are presumed "substantially outweighed" and the balance is confirmatory only (pp.3, 14). - The same logic is available under S5(2) and S5(5) for sites outside settlements, and for Green Belt sites found not inappropriate. SDC has not yet applied it to DP3(3) (see stratford-26-00617-PIP). - The sequential test is about flood-zone alternatives only. Other designations, such as the Green Belt, are irrelevant to it (p.12). ## Policy findings - **S4(2)(c): fail.** failure of F7, a "should be refused" policy, makes the benefits "likely to be substantially outweighed" - **F7: fail (substantial weight).** dwellings placed in FZ2/3 when parts of the site are FZ1 (F7(2)(a)); safe access, resilience and off-site risk requirements not met; ground-level changes would worsen flood risk for the host property - **F5: fail.** no sequential test evidence; applicant's attempt to run it against Green Belt and amenity rather than flood-zone alternatives called "wholly incorrect" - **F6: fail.** exception test not demonstrated - **N2: fail (significant weight).** no habitat baseline so BNG could not be assessed - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 2 dwellings - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** CS.15 given very limited weight, but not relevant since the site is inside the BUAB ## Key facts - Site inside the BUAB of Alcester (Main Rural Centre); western half in Flood Zones 2 and 3 - Access strip off Evesham Road lies in the Green Belt but carries no built development; openness not affected - Applicant's flood report reasoned the site "meets the sequential test, as it is outside of the greenbelt" - Resubmission of a previous refusal (25/02296/FUL) ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/17a0bc82-221b-c690-1c04-08debd514ecb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01376-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.