- Decision
- refused, 2 October 2026
- Decided by
- Council officer (delegated): Case officer Kacey Dickinson
- Authority
- Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)
- Application reference
- 26/01542/FUL
- Procedure
- delegated
- Development
- Self-build detached four-bedroom house in the rear garden of a bungalow
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- green belt, washed over village, valued landscape
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Housing land supply
- 2.21 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- L2(1)(d), S5(5)
- Development plan policies
- Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.9, CS.10, CS.15, CS.16, CS.20, CS.26, Tanworth-in-Arden NDP 2022 H3, BE1
- Main issues
- development within a residential curtilage; character; Green Belt village infill; S5(5) balance
Summary
A self-build house in the back garden of a bungalow at Earlswood, a village washed over by the Green Belt, refused under delegated powers on 2 October 2026. The officer held the plot to be "infill" under GB7(1)(c), so not inappropriate development, and then refused it on character grounds and under L2(1)(d): the house would be visible backland development out of keeping with the street scene, with too little garden. This is an SDC refusal of a single dwelling on the "substantially outweighed" balance despite the 2.21-year supply. The report is a scanned image and was read by OCR; page numbers are PDF pages.
Issues and findings
- Settlement and route. The report treats the site as within a settlement: it is "within the BUAB of Earlswood" as drawn in the neighbourhood plan (p.3), and S4 and S4(2)(a)(ii) are quoted in full (pp.4–5). The report does not mention the Annex B definition, under which a village washed over by the Green Belt is not a settlement as the NPPF defines it. Eight days earlier a different SDC officer applied that exclusion to another house in Earlswood (stratford-26-01614-FUL). The conclusion here is framed under "NDMPs S5 and GB7" (p.13), which is the S5(5) route.
- Green Belt, GB7(1)(c): PASS. "The proposed development includes existing built form to the sides, rear and front, therefore whilst it is considered to be backland development, the dwelling can also be considered infill development which is not considered to be inappropriate development in the green belt in accordance with CS.10 and GB7 1c" (p.8). CS.10 was nonetheless held "materially inconsistent with the requirements of the Framework" and given very limited weight (p.8).
- L2(1)(d): FAIL on (i) and (ii). "The proposal would introduce backland development into an area where this form of development is not characteristic, and where properties are typically set within large rear gardens" (p.6). "Owing to the increased height of the proposed dwelling, together with its siting to the rear of No. 144, the development would be visible from the street frontage" (p.6). On (ii): "The proposed dwelling would provide four bedrooms and approximately 46.94sqm of private amenity space. This falls below the 62sqm minimum requirement" (p.11). "Taking the above into account, the application fails to accord with NDMP L2 (1) (d) parts i and ii" (p.6).
- Character. "Malthouse Lane has a varied street scene, although its dwellings are generally characterised by large gardens and an established pattern of frontage development. The proposal would disrupt this prevailing pattern" (p.8). The officer found "a substantial impact on character and landscape of the immediate street scene" (p.9).
- Neighbours. "I do consider the development will cause some moderate harm to neighbouring dwellings of which, I afford moderate weight" (p.10).
- Plan weight. CS.15 and CS.16 were given very limited weight as "materially inconsistent with the relevant NDMPs" even though the scheme complied with them (p.4). S6 was not engaged because the neighbourhood plan, made in 2022, has no housing allocations (p.4).
Planning balance
S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance, after the GB7(1)(c) pass. Against: the L2(1)(d) failure; "substantial harm to the landscape character and established built form of the local area"; moderate harm to neighbours. For: one dwelling, "substantial positive weight in principle, although I acknowledge that the benefit is limited in scale given that the proposal would deliver only one dwelling"; a self-build plot, moderate; economic benefits and climate measures, limited (p.13). The concluding sentence reads: "I conclude that the overall adverse effects of the development are substantially outweighed by benefits of approving the scheme, therefore it is recommended the application is refused" (p.13). Read literally, that sentence supports approval. The recommendation, the reasons and the notice show that the officer meant the reverse.
What made the difference
The officer graded the character harm as substantial and found two limbs of L2(1)(d) failed, against a housing benefit discounted for scale. The Green Belt played no part in the refusal: once the plot was called "infill" under GB7(1)(c), openness dropped out. A different reading of GB7(1)(c), that a plot behind a frontage is not "infilling", would have made the scheme inappropriate development and added a Green Belt reason. The notice does not cite S4, S5 or the "substantially outweighed" test, and reason 1 cites no Framework policy at all.
Transferable points
- SDC treated a backland garden plot in a washed-over village as "Limited infilling in villages lying within the Green Belt" under GB7(1)(c) because there was built form on all sides (p.8). The same report calls the scheme "backland development" that is "not characteristic" of the area (p.6).
- L2(1)(d) was used as a refusal reason in its own right for a single dwelling: limbs (i) and (ii) (pp.6, 14; Notice reason 2). The report quoted S4(2)(a)(ii) but did not apply it.
- Substantial weight to housing "in principle" was discounted because the scheme was one dwelling (p.13). Other SDC reports give a single home substantial weight without that qualification (stratford-26-01458-FUL, stratford-26-01906-PIP).
- SDC is not consistent on whether a washed-over village is a settlement. This report applies S4 and L2(1)(d) in Earlswood; stratford-26-01614-FUL (24 Sep 2026) says a site in Earlswood "is not considered to be within a settlement because it lies within the Green Belt".
- The balance sentence is inverted (p.13) and the notice reasons are written in the first person ("I consider the development will have a substantial impact"). Both are drafting slips an appellant may point to.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(c) | pass | built form "to the sides, rear and front", so "whilst it is considered to be backland development, the dwelling can also be considered infill development" (p.8); the report writes "GB7 1c" | |
| S5(5) | fail | not inappropriate, so "should be granted unless benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (p.13); refused on that balance, though the concluding sentence is worded the wrong way round | |
| L2(1)(d) | fail | fails (i), not consistent with the street scene and visible from the frontage (house about 7 m high behind bungalows of about 5.5 m), and (ii), amenity space of 46.94 sqm against a 62 sqm standard (pp.6, 11); refusal reason 2 | |
| S4(2)(a)(ii) | not-engaged | quoted in full with S4 (pp.4-5) but never applied; no finding on whether the L2(1)(d) failure was a "substantial adverse impact"; not cited in the notice | |
| AnnexB:settlement | pass | site treated as within a settlement (S4 and L2(1)(d), both "within settlements", quoted and applied) because it is inside the Earlswood boundary in the neighbourhood plan; the report does not mention the Annex B exclusion of villages washed over by the Green Belt | |
| LP CS.9 (local) | conflict | "a substantial impact on character and landscape of the immediate street scene" (p.9); refusal reason 1 cites CS.9 and CS.20 and no Framework policy | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | one dwelling; "substantial positive weight in principle, although I acknowledge that the benefit is limited in scale" (p.13) |
| HO7 | benefit | moderate | one self-build plot toward the 3-year rolling supply (pp.7, 13) |
| S6 | not-engaged | neighbourhood plan made 2022 with no housing allocations (p.4) | |
| Transitional(2) | conflict | very-limited | CS.15 and CS.16 given very limited weight although the scheme complied with them (p.4); CS.10 "materially inconsistent" with GB7 (p.8); NDP H3 and CS.26 also very limited; CS.9 treated as materially consistent |
Key facts
- Rear-garden plot behind a frontage bungalow; the proposed house is about 7 m high against frontage bungalows of about 5.5 m
- Four bedrooms with about 46.94 sqm of private amenity space against the council's 62 sqm minimum
- Earlswood is washed over by the Green Belt; the site is inside the Built-Up Area Boundary drawn in the Tanworth-in-Arden neighbourhood plan
- The officer passed GB7(1)(c) (limited infilling in villages) for a backland plot, then refused on character and L2(1)(d)
- The notice has no Green Belt reason; reason 1 cites CS.9 and CS.20 only and reason 2 cites L2(1)(d) parts (i) and (ii) only
- Self-build register evidence to October 2024 showed a surplus of 18 plots; moderate weight given
- Parish Council objected (overdevelopment, drainage, bin collection); 8 letters of objection; county highway authority raised no objection
- The report header cites "National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024 (Updated 2026)"; the assessment applies the 2026 policies
- The concluding sentence says the adverse effects "are substantially outweighed by benefits", yet recommends refusal
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.