# Bridge Farm, Birmingham Road, Kings Coughton

- **Decision:** approved, 28 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Sarah Leach
- **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)
- **Application reference:** 26/01447/FUL
- **Procedure:** delegated
- **Development:** Retrospective farm shop building with decking, lighting and parking, and change of use of land to retail
- **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, valued-landscape
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued)
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), E4(1)(d)
- **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 AS.10, CS.22, CS.10, CS.5, CS.9, CS.12, CS.8, CS.26, CS.4, CS.6, Alcester NDP 2021 NE2, NE5
- **Main issues:** Green Belt inappropriateness, very special circumstances, farm diversification
- **Tags:** vsc-shown, retrospective, rural-business, rural-diversification, farm-shop, openness-not-assessed, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, drafting-slip, stratford-relevant

## Summary
A retrospective farm shop on an egg farm in the Green Belt at Kings Coughton, near Alcester, granted under delegated powers on 28 September 2026. The officer went through every category in GB7(1) and found that none applied, so the shop was inappropriate development. Very special circumstances were then accepted: the farm can lawfully sell eggs direct to the public only at the holding, and the shop brings about a fifth of its income. The report is a scanned image and was read by OCR; page numbers are PDF pages.

## Issues and findings
- **Principle: E4(1)(d) and AS.10.** AS.10(p) allows farm shops selling local produce, and E4 supports "Development to maintain and enhance farm viability and sustainability and support domestic food production", naming farm shops (p.3). "The principle of development is considered to accord to NDMP E4 of the NPPF and Policy CS.22 of the Core Strategy; however, this is dependent on the application being acceptable in Green Belt terms" (p.3).
- **GB7(1): no category applies.** "The application does not fall within (a) as the development is not for agriculture, horticulture or forestry" (p.5). It did not relate to an existing building, so (b) failed. On (e): "The application site has not been lawfully developed and prior to the erection of the farm shop building and associated works, the land appears to have been used for agriculture" (p.5). On (g): "The application would not meet all the requirements of part (g) as there is not an evidenced unmet need for the type of development proposed" (p.5).
- **Inappropriate.** "The proposed development is therefore considered to be inappropriate in the Green Belt, which is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances" (p.6).
- **Very special circumstances: accepted.** The first was "that this is the only lawful location for the applicant to sell directly to consumers" (p.6). The second: "the farm shop generates approximately 20% of the total farm income for a two-person enterprise, which is directly critical to the financial viability of the egg production business" (p.6). "Owing to the Very Special Circumstances provided, it is considered that the need for the shop as demonstrated in the planning statement would outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt" (p.6).
- **Plan weight.** "in light of the requirements set out in NDMPs GB7 and GB8 which includes the assessment of Grey Belt land and the Golden Rules, I consider that Policy CS.10 is materially inconsistent with the requirements of the Framework" (p.4).
- **Landscape and other matters.** The building "resembles a small outbuilding" and was held acceptable in the Arden Special Landscape Area (p.6). No objection on highways, ecology, flood risk or amenity.

## Planning balance
GB6(2) very special circumstances. The report quotes the test, including that harm must be "clearly outweighed by other considerations" and that substantial weight is given to Green Belt harm (p.4). Its own conclusion is shorter: the need for the shop "would outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt" (p.6). No harm other than inappropriateness is identified, and the effect on openness is not assessed. The final conclusion says the application "accords with the development plan" and is acceptable "on the basis that Very Special Circumstances as set out in the Green Belt section of this report" (p.9).

## What made the difference
A specific regulatory reason why the shop had to be on the holding, and a figure for its share of farm income. The officer separated those from the general community benefit of a food shop, which could be met within the village and so was not "very special". The condition limiting the building to farm shop use ties the permission to the circumstance that justified it.

## Transferable points
- A farm shop is not "Development which is for agriculture" under GB7(1)(a), even where it sells the farm's own produce and supports the farm (p.5). E4(1)(d) support for farm shops does not make one "not inappropriate" in the Green Belt (p.3).
- GB7(1)(g) failed at limb (ii) for a non-housing use: no evidenced unmet need for the type of development (p.5). The officer did not need to decide whether the land was grey belt.
- Land used for agriculture, built on without permission, is not previously developed land for GB7(1)(e) (p.5).
- SDC accepted very special circumstances on need and farm viability with no openness assessment and without using the word "clearly" in its conclusion (p.6). GB6(2) requires the harm, including harm to openness, to be "clearly outweighed".
- A benefit that could be delivered inside a nearby village was treated as a public benefit only, not a very special circumstance (p.6).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(a): fail.** the shop supports a farm business but "the development itself is a retail shop, namely a farm shop which is not agricultural in use" (p.5)
- **GB7(1)(e): fail.** the land "has not been lawfully developed" and was in agricultural use; the report cites the Annex B exclusion of land last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings (p.5)
- **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** "there is not an evidenced unmet need for the type of development proposed" (p.5); no finding on grey belt, limb (i)
- **GB6(2): pass (substantial weight).** inappropriate; very special circumstances accepted - the holding is the only lawful place for the farm to sell eggs direct to consumers, and the shop brings about 20% of farm income (p.6); the conclusion says the need "would outweigh the harm", without the word "clearly"
- **E4(1)(d): accord.** farm shops named in the policy; the report writes "NDMP E4 part (d)" (p.3)
- **S5(5): not-engaged.** "Policy S5 does not apply to sites within the Green Belt" (p.3); inappropriate development, so no S5(5) balance
- **TR6(4): pass.** county highway authority raised no objection; internal visibility splays to be provided within 3 months by condition (pp.7-8)
- **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** CS.10 "materially inconsistent" because GB7 and GB8 include grey belt and the Golden Rules (p.4); CS.8 and CS.26 also called materially inconsistent (p.7)

## Key facts
- Retrospective - the shop building, decking, lighting and hardstanding for up to 8 cars were already in place
- The shop is said to generate about 20% of total farm income for a two-person egg enterprise with a 20,000-bird laying flock, and to have created two local jobs
- Under the Egg Marketing Regulations the farm may sell eggs direct to consumers only at the holding
- A third claimed circumstance, a food outlet for the community, was treated as a public benefit and not as a very special circumstance, because a shop could be located within Kings Coughton
- The report makes no assessment of the effect of the building on openness; the word appears only in quotations of CS.10, GB6 and GB7
- Use restricted by condition to a farm shop (Class E(a)) because that use is the very special circumstance
- Town Council supported; one letter of support; closest dwellings over 150 m away
- The site is reached by a footway on the east side of Birmingham Road, with bus stops on that road

## Sources
- https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/3318dcff-5d50-c9f0-f79e-08dec2f2532b

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01447-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.