Land between Clunes and Sundial, Bordon Hill, Stratford-upon-Avon

Decision

approved, 9 September 2026

Decided by

Council officer (delegated): Interim Head of Development (item withdrawn from 9 Sep 2026 committee as no registered speakers); case officer Abbey Morris

Authority

Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)

Application reference

26/01588/PIP

Procedure

delegated

Development

Permission in principle for 1 to 2 dwellings with associated works including a pedestrian crossing

Homes

2

Site context

open countryside, valued landscape

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.21 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j), TR3(1)(a), Transitional(2)

Development plan policies

Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.5, CS.9, CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, Stratford-upon-Avon NDP 2018 H1, BE1, BE2, BE6

Main issues

principle outside settlement; pedestrian access; landscape sensitivity

Summary

Permission in principle for up to 2 houses on a steep roadside plot about 0.5 km beyond the Stratford-upon-Avon boundary, after a 9-dwelling PIP on a larger red line was refused in April 2026. The report was prepared for the 9 September committee. No speakers registered, so the Chair returned the decision to officers, and permission was granted the same day. The officer ran S5(1)(j) and scored the walking and bus shortcomings as moderate harm. A pedestrian crossing written into the description, and the prospect of bus improvements from an allowed 130-home appeal nearby, counted in its favour.

Issues and findings

• Principle, S5(1)(j): PASS on the 2.21-year supply. CS.15, CS.16, AS.10 and NDP H1 were given very limited weight as materially inconsistent. The NDP "was made in 2018", so S6 was not engaged (Report p.7).
• Pedestrian route: harm weighted in the balance. WCC Highways noted "no footway on the northern side of Bordon Hill". Because conditions cannot be imposed on a PIP, "the description of development includes; associated works including a pedestrian crossing … I therefore afford significant weight to the fact that there is a reasonable prospect of the site connecting to the southern footpath" (p.7). "WCC Highways state that walking side by side is not possible and walking close to high-speed traffic is not considered suitable … I therefore give this minor disbenefit limited weight because the footpath can still be readily used" (pp.7–8).
• Planned improvements (TR3(1)(a) "or which can be made so"). The allowed Bordon Hill appeal (130 homes; condition 35 and the S106 provide bus stops and a bus service) was held to have a "real prospect" of delivery, giving "new bus infrastructure within 400m", which carried moderate weight (p.8).
• Landscape: moderate harm. The site is in parcel St24, of high sensitivity to housing. Moderate weight was given after the site was reduced from about 0.58 ha to 0.095 ha (pp.10–11).

Planning balance

S5(1) balance. Against: very limited weight to the plan conflicts; limited, moderate and limited weights to the three walking and bus shortcomings; moderate weight to landscape. For: substantial weight to up to 2 dwellings; moderate weight to Bordon Hill connectivity; limited weight to economic benefits. The benefits were "not … substantially outweighed" (p.18).

What made the difference

Reducing the red line and unit numbers turned the April 2026 landscape refusal into moderate harm. Putting the crossing into the description of development gave the officer a way to secure it on a PIP. Unimplemented bus infrastructure from a neighbouring appeal scheme counted as a planned improvement.

Transferable points

• On a PIP, SDC accepts access or pedestrian works written into the description of development as enough certainty to weigh them (p.7). Without that, the absent footway would have been unmitigated.
• Committed but unbuilt infrastructure from an allowed appeal can count under TR3(1)(a) "or which can be made so" if there is a "real prospect" of delivery (p.8).
• Each walking and bus shortfall is weighted separately as limited or moderate. None was treated as decisive (p.18).
• On SDC practice, a Town Council objection with no registered speaker is sent back to officers under the Constitution (minute 207).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Earlier PIP for 1–9 dwellings (25/03048/PIP) refused 10 Apr 2026 on landscape
• No footway on the northern side of Bordon Hill; WCC Highways said walking close to high-speed traffic "is not considered suitable"
• Nearest bus stop about 720 m (routes 27/28); town centre about 2.5 km, up a steep hill
• Crossing written into the PIP description because a PIP cannot carry conditions or obligations
• Town Council objection was the only reason for committee; with no speakers registered, the Chair returned the item to delegated decision

Sources

• democracy.stratford.gov.uk
• democracy.stratford.gov.uk
• 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.