- Decision
- approved, 25 August 2026
- Decided by
- Council officer (delegated): Case officer Issy Howell
- Authority
- Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)
- Application reference
- 26/01393/FUL
- Procedure
- delegated
- Development
- Demolition of agricultural barns and erection of 5 dwellings, in place of three Class Q prior approvals for 7 conversions
- Homes
- 5
- Site context
- open countryside, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 2.21 years
- Framework applied
- December 2024 NPPF (transitional)
- Determinative policies
- Transitional(1)
- Development plan policies
- Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, CS.9, CS.20
- Main issues
- fallback; principle outside settlement
Summary
Five new houses replacing a group of barns outside the physical confines of Oxhill, granted under delegated powers on 25 August 2026. The barns already had Class Q prior approvals for 7 conversions, and that fallback carried the decision. The report was written under the 2024 Framework's 11(d) and re-anchored with a one-paragraph note.
Issues and findings
- Location. The site conflicts with CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10. The officer found it "would still be considered an unsustainable location for housing development" (Report p.9).
- Fallback. "The extant prior approval establishes the use of 7 dwellings on site, in an unsustainable location. Given that the principle of a dwelling has been established on site … and that the fallback is a realistic alternative, it is possible for the fallback position to outweigh the identified conflicts" (pp.9–10).
- Transitional note. "This report was written prior to the introduction of the 2026 NPPF … the balancing exercise undertaken in this report remains generally consistent and … the decision remains one of GRANT" (p.10).
Planning balance
Old 11(d) tilted balance plus fallback. The unsustainable location and visual domestication were outweighed by a realistic fallback of 7 conversions, better design, better highway layout and 5 homes.
What made the difference
A realistic Class Q fallback. Under the 2026 Framework no S5(1) category is obvious. (c) needs a replacement "for the same use", and agricultural buildings are excluded from PDL, so (d) is unavailable. S5(1)(j) would require the site to be "physically well-related" to Oxhill. The fallback would probably have to justify an S5(4) "exceptional circumstances" approval. The one-paragraph note did not engage with this.
Transferable points
- SDC's standard closing note for pre-17 August reports ("remains generally consistent") was also used where the 2026 route is unclear (p.10). Weak reasoning to rely on in later cases.
- Class Q fallbacks continue to justify rebuilds in locations the officer calls unsustainable (pp.9–10).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transitional(1) | neutral | report written under 2024 11(d); a "Procedural Issue" paragraph says the balance "remains generally consistent" with the 2026 NPPF; no S5 analysis | |
| S5(1)(c) | not-engaged | not considered; agricultural-to-residential rebuild is not a replacement "for the same use", so (c) would not obviously apply; approval rests on the Class Q fallback | |
| TR3(1)(a) | harm | officer still regards the site as "an unsustainable location for housing development", outweighed by the fallback |
Key facts
- Three extant Class Q prior approvals (24/03277, 25/01125, 26/00024/COUQ) for 7 dwellings; none started; the first expires Feb 2028
- Fallback held "greater than theoretical" (Gambone and Snowden cited)
- New build of 589 sq m replaces 658 sq m of barns; WCC Highways saw a layout betterment over the Class Q scheme
- Report written before 17 Aug, decision 25 Aug 2026
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.