# The Barn, Tithe Barn Lane, Earlswood (Hockley Heath)

- **Decision:** approved, 3 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Joshua Cooper (signed off Joe Brooke)
- **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)
- **Application reference:** 26/01458/FUL
- **Procedure:** delegated
- **Development:** Demolition of an agricultural barn and erection of one self-build dwelling with detached garage (following PIP 25/02256/PIP)
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** green-belt, washed-over-village, settlement-edge, valued-landscape
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted)
- **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g), S5(5)
- **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.5, CS.9, CS.10, CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, Tanworth-in-Arden NDP 2022 H3, BE1, NE1
- **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, landscape, self-build
- **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, self-build, buab-equals-sustainable, substantial-harm-still-approved, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, small-scheme, stratford-relevant

## Summary
A replacement of a field barn with a self-build house behind a row of cottages at Earlswood, a Green Belt village in Tanworth parish. The officer routed it through GB7(1)(g) as grey belt. The report was scanned and read by OCR. The sustainable-location limb was passed because the footprint lies within the Built-Up Area Boundary. Moderate landscape harm, given substantial weight, was held not to substantially outweigh one home plus self-build benefits. Granted under delegated powers on 3 September 2026.

## Issues and findings
- **Grey belt: PASS.** "Earlswood is a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns. It therefore does not strongly contribute to purposes (a) or (b)" (Report p.8). Purpose (c) harm was "limited" as the site "is bordered by established development to the north and west" (p.9).
- **GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS without TR3 analysis.** "Considering the location of the dwelling, within the BUAB of an identified local service village, I am satisfied that the proposals would be in a sustainable location" (p.9).
- **Landscape and character: moderate harm, substantial weight.** "The 'back land' nature of the development would not accord with the prevailing character … and the significant area of garden land would contribute to a domestic encroachment into the open countryside" (p.10). "The moderate harm to the visual amenities of the area and landscape and associated conflicts with CS.5 and CS.9 of the Core Strategy and NDP Policy BE1, is afforded substantial weight" (p.15).
- **Weight to the plan.** The standard SDC paragraph: CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10 are "materially inconsistent", so very limited weight (p.6). The NDP "whilst made within the last 5 years, does not contain sufficient housing allocations to meet the housing need calculations", so S6 is not engaged (p.6).

## Planning balance
S5(5). Against: very limited weight to the plan and SWLP conflicts; substantial weight to moderate landscape harm; limited weight to bin-carry distances. For: substantial weight to one dwelling; significant weight to self-build; limited weight to climate measures and the economy. "The benefits … would not be substantially outweighed" (p.15).

## What made the difference
GB7(1)(g) was the gateway, and limb (iii) was treated as met by the BUAB designation alone. Once in S5(5), even substantial-weight harm did not tip the balance against substantial housing weight plus significant self-build weight.

## Transferable points
- SDC delegated practice: a site within a Local Service Village BUAB is treated as a "sustainable location" for GB7(1)(g)(iii) without route-by-route TR3 analysis (p.9). Objectors should expect route quality to be examined only where the site is outside the BUAB.
- A second SDC decision, with Snitterfield (stratford-26-00617-PIP), in which harm given substantial weight did not "substantially outweigh" substantial housing benefit (p.15).
- The officer found that the scheme fell under none of GB7(1)(a)–(f) or (h) and went to GB7(1)(g) (p.8). This is consistent with Annex B, which excludes land last occupied by agricultural buildings from PDL; that is our inference, as the report does not say why (e) failed.

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** Earlswood "a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns"; site bordered by development to north and west
- **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** 2.21-year supply
- **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** passed in one sentence because the dwelling footprint lies within the BUAB of a Category 3 LSV; no TR3 analysis of routes or services
- **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** 0.49 ha, 1 dwelling
- **DP3: harm (substantial weight).** officer found "moderate harm" to visual amenity and landscape (backland, garden encroachment, Arden SLA) given substantial weight
- **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** CS.10, CS.15, CS.16, AS.10 and NDP H3 materially inconsistent
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling towards the supply

## Key facts
- The dwelling itself sits inside the Earlswood BUAB; the drive and garden extend into open countryside outside it
- Existing agricultural barn; officer found none of GB7(1)(a)-(f) or (h) applied and used the grey-belt route
- Self-build, with a surplus of 18 plots at 30 Oct 2024; self-build given significant weight
- Officer gave moderate landscape harm "substantial weight" and still found benefits not substantially outweighed

## Sources
- https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/87b2c02e-9845-ccac-142a-08dec562c6ee

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01458-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.