Hales Farm, Fosse Way, Moreton Morrell

Decision

approved, 7 September 2026

Decided by

Council officer (delegated): Case officer Ian Guffick

Authority

Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)

Application reference

26/01558/FUL

Procedure

delegated

Development

Demolition of a 137 sq m dwelling and 58 sq m annexe; replacement self-build country house of 654 sq m

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, isolated, valued landscape, PDL

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(d), S5(1)(c)

Development plan policies

Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.5, CS.9, CS.12, CS.20, AS.10(f)

Main issues

replacement dwelling size; PDL route; landscape

Summary

A replacement dwelling in open countryside, more than three times the size of the house it replaces. It failed the "not disproportionately larger" test in S5(1)(c) and Core Strategy CS.20. The officer approved it anyway under S5(1)(d), treating the residential curtilage as previously developed land with no size limit, backed by an extant fallback permission. Granted under delegated powers on 7 September 2026.

Issues and findings

• S5(1)(d): PASS. "In this instance, the site can be considered to be previously developed land, in accordance with part D, which Officers note, contains no restrictions relating to the scale of a development" (Report p.5).
• S5(1)(c) and CS.20: conflict. "The proposed replacement would therefore be significantly larger than the existing … the proposal is considered to conflict with Policy CS.20 … The proposal also conflicts with NDMP S5.C" (pp.5–6).
• Appeal support. The officer relied on appeal 6004872 (25/01061/PIP): "Policy CS.20 allows for some flexibility with consideration of harm to character and amenity being the overarching consideration" (p.6).
• Landscape: no harm. The design is of high quality, and the site is set back with an LVIA and landscaping. "No harm can be identified with the proposal" (p.13).

Planning balance

The conflict with CS.20 and S5(1)(c) on size and siting was held "outweighed by the overall benefits". "It is recommended that presumption in favour of sustainable development applies" (p.13). The fallback of the 2024 permission, which was also significantly larger than the existing house, carried much of the weight.

What made the difference

The Annex B definition of PDL includes the curtilage of developed land and excludes residential gardens only "in built-up areas". A rural house plot therefore counts as PDL, and S5(1)(d) has no proportionality limit. In practice this lets a large replacement house bypass the proportionality test in S5(1)(c). Without the (d) route and the fallback, the S5(1)(c) conflict would have needed "exceptional circumstances" under S5(4).

Transferable points

• SDC reads S5(1)(d) as available to replacement dwellings on rural residential curtilage, with "no restrictions relating to the scale of a development" (p.5). This is a significant gloss that can be used, or challenged, in other replacement-dwelling cases.
• Where both (c) and (d) could apply, an officer may approve under (d) despite failing (c)'s proportionality test (pp.5–6, 13). That reading makes (c)'s limit on replacements largely redundant for residential sites outside built-up areas.
• The balance was not expressly framed as S5(1) "substantially outweighed". The report reverts to the generic phrase "presumption in favour of sustainable development applies" (p.13).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Replacement is 654 sq m against 195 sq m demolished; an extant 2024 fallback permission (23/02737/FUL) for a larger contemporary replacement
• Site about 500 m south-east of Moreton Morrell, over 150 m from the nearest neighbour
• Officer cited the recent SDC PIP appeal 6004872 (25/01061/PIP), where a replacement "significantly larger" than the original was allowed because it caused no harm
• Self-build exemptions from BNG and CIL (about £43.6k) claimed

Sources

• apps.stratford.gov.uk

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.