- Decision
- refused, 28 August 2026
- Decided by
- Council officer (delegated): Case officer Catherine Gibbons
- Authority
- Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)
- Application reference
- 26/01399/PIP
- Procedure
- delegated
- Development
- Permission in principle for one dwelling in the rear garden of a non-designated heritage asset, with access through a demolished garage
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting, national landscape
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 2.21 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(1), HE6(4), HE7
- Development plan policies
- Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.8, CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, Ilmington NDP 2021 DC.1, HA.1
- Main issues
- heritage; conservation area; backland development
Summary
A PIP for one house in a back garden inside Ilmington's BUAB and Conservation Area, next to Grade II listed barns. Principle was acceptable under the Core Strategy and S4. It was refused under delegated powers on 28 August 2026 on heritage grounds: harm to the Conservation Area, to the setting of the listed barns and to the host building (a non-designated heritage asset), not outweighed by the "modest" benefit of one home.
Issues and findings
- Principle: S4, within settlement. The site is in the Ilmington BUAB (Category 3 LSV), so CS.15, CS.16, AS.10 and NDP DC.1 were complied with (Report p.4). The IPPS "confirms that Ilmington NDP was adopted in the past 5 years (July 2021) and contains housing allocations, it is therefore considered to be 'in date' and significant weight can therefore be attributed to the NDP policies" (p.5).
- Heritage: HE6 harm, not outweighed. "The introduction of a new/modern dwelling in this location would be at odds with the historic settlement pattern and traditional listed buildings in close proximity to the site and the listed barns historic relationship with the landscape would be eroded" (p.6). "I attribute great weight to this as required by the NPPF … the provision of one dwelling is considered to be a modest benefit in the scheme of things" (p.10).
- HE7. Church View is a building of local importance, and the new dwelling "would dominate the site and erode the traditional rural character of the property" (pp.6–7).
- S4 conclusion. "The benefits of approving a new dwelling within this settlement location would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, namely the identified harm to heritage assets and non designated heritage assets, contrary to NDMP S4" (p.11).
Planning balance
The heritage balance under HE6(4) was run first and failed. That failure was then carried into the S4 "substantially outweighed" conclusion. The officer did not expressly invoke S4(2)(c), the route for failing a "should be refused" policy. The refusal reason cites CS.8, NDP HA.1 and "the provisions of the NPPF".
What made the difference
Designated heritage harm (Conservation Area plus listed building setting) against a single dwelling. The housing shortfall, although given "significant weight" in principle, was treated as a "modest" public benefit in the heritage balance.
Transferable points
- Inside a settlement, SDC treats designated heritage harm that fails the HE6(4) balance as enough to meet the S4(1) "substantially outweighed" threshold for a single dwelling (pp.10–11).
- Internal inconsistency: the officer held CS.8 and HA.1 "materially inconsistent" with HE5 (p.5) but refused under them. The reasoning survives only because HE6 does the same work. An appellant may exploit this.
- Old language persists: "great weight" and "(formerly 'less than substantial') harm" (p.6, p.10), although HE6(1) now says "substantial weight".
- SDC's IPPS treats a post-2021 NDP with allocations as "in date" (p.5). Contrast Southam (stratford-25-00346-OUT), where a 2023 NDP with allocations was treated as out of date under the same IPPS.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S4(1) | fail | within Ilmington BUAB (Category 3 LSV); "benefits … would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, namely the identified harm to heritage assets" | |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | harm to character and appearance of Ilmington Conservation Area and to setting of Grade II Hill Farm Barns (1–3); officer also says "great weight" |
| HE6(4) | fail | one dwelling "a modest benefit in the scheme of things"; public benefits do not outweigh | |
| HE7 | harm | Church View (building of local importance in the CA review) would be dominated by a dwelling set higher in its rear garden | |
| Transitional(2) | conflict | officer held CS.8 and NDP HA.1 "materially inconsistent" with HE5, yet still refused citing them | |
| S6 | neutral | IPPS treats Ilmington NDP (made July 2021, with allocations) as "in date"; significant weight to NDP | |
| HO7 | benefit | significant | single dwelling against the 2.21-year supply ("significant weight … at this time") but "modest" in the heritage balance |
Key facts
- Backland plot within the Conservation Area, in the historic core with long rear gardens; dwelling set higher than the host
- Adjoins three Grade II listed Hill Farm Barns; host is a non-designated heritage asset
- Cotswold National Landscape washes over the village; site in NDP Valued Landscape 1
- WCC Highways no objection; 11 third-party and Parish Council objections
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.