- Decision
- refused, 24 September 2026
- Decided by
- Council officer (delegated): Case officer Lindsey Young
- Authority
- Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)
- Application reference
- 26/01614/FUL
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Two-storey side and rear extension and remodelling of a detached house
- Site context
- green belt, washed over village, valued landscape
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB6(2), GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(e), AnnexB:PDL
- Development plan policies
- Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.6, CS.9, CS.10, CS.12, CS.20, Tanworth-in-Arden NDP BE1
- Main issues
- Green Belt inappropriateness; disproportionate extension; previously developed land; fallback; settlement definition
Summary
A householder refusal in Earlswood, a village washed over by the Green Belt, issued under delegated powers on 24 September 2026. A two-storey side and rear extension would take the house from about 374 m3 to about 970 m3. The officer held that to be a disproportionate increase under GB7(1)(b), rejected the applicant's alternative case under GB7(1)(e) because a garden within a built-up area is not previously developed land, and found no very special circumstances. The report opens by applying the Annex B definition of settlement: the site is not within a settlement because it is in the Green Belt. The report is a scanned image and was read by OCR; page numbers are PDF pages.
Issues and findings
- Settlement: Annex B applied. "In accordance with the definition of a settlement set out in the Annex B – Glossary of NPPF, the application site is not considered to be within a settlement because it lies within the Green Belt" (p.2). S5 was then set aside because it "does not apply to development proposals within the Green Belt", and the scheme was assessed under GB6 and GB7.
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. "The original dwelling has a volume of approximately 374m3, whereas the proposed dwelling would have a volume of approximately 970m3" (p.3). "The use of numerical measure alone can be seen as an over prescriptive approach to matters of proportionality" (p.3), but taking mass, bulk and footprint together: "I consider the increase in size to be clearly a disproportionate increase for the purposes of Policy GB7(1) (b) and policy CS.10 of the Core Strategy" (p.3).
- Previously developed land, GB7(1)(e): FAIL. "Whilst the NPPF establishes that residential garden land outside a built-up area can be regarded as previously developed land the question of whether a particular residential garden falls within or outside a built-up area for this purpose is a matter of planning judgement" (p.3). "On this basis I consider the application site is within a built-up area for the purposes of the definition in the NPPF" (p.3). Separately, the scheme was "most appropriately characterised as the extension and alteration of an existing building" and not redevelopment (p.8).
- Fallback: limited weight. "a fallback position is a material consideration rather than a substitute for the policy test contained within GB7(1)(b)" (p.6). The officer did not accept the applicant's figure: "a more realistic cumulative fallback position is approximately 794m3" (p.7). "On this basis the fall back position is given limited weight" (p.8).
- Openness. "The development through adding bulk to the original dwelling and also enlarging its footprint does cause some moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (p.4). "openness has both spatial and visual dimensions, and containment or limited wider visibility does not of itself mean that there would be no substantial harm to openness" (p.9).
- Design: acceptable. The design, the Special Landscape Area, neighbours and ecology raised no objection (pp.4–5).
Planning balance
GB6(2) very special circumstances. Harm by inappropriateness, given substantial weight, plus moderate harm to openness. On the other side: the permitted development fallback (limited weight), the retention of original fabric and the design benefit of consolidating additions into one form. "Taken individually and cumulatively, these considerations are not considered sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the identified harm to openness" (p.9).
What made the difference
Volume. A 159% increase over the original dwelling could not be called proportionate, and the applicant's fallback, once the wrap-around side extension was removed from it, still left the scheme 22% larger than what could be built without permission. The alternative route through previously developed land failed at the definition: the officer placed the garden inside a built-up area because the house stands in a row that "clearly forms part of the village".
Transferable points
- An SDC officer applied the Annex B exclusion in terms: a site in a washed-over village "is not considered to be within a settlement because it lies within the Green Belt" (p.2). Other SDC reports, including one in the same village eight days later (stratford-26-01542-FUL), treat washed-over villages as settlements and apply S4.
- The same village is not a settlement for S4 and S5 but is "a built-up area" for the previously developed land definition (pp.2–3). These are different tests: Annex B excludes washed-over villages from "settlement" by their Green Belt designation, while the garden exclusion in the previously developed land definition turns on built form on the ground.
- A householder extension cannot be re-labelled as "redevelopment" of previously developed land to avoid the proportionality test in GB7(1)(b) (p.8).
- A permitted development fallback is weighed in the very special circumstances balance; it does not change the "original building" baseline under GB7(1)(b) (p.6). A fallback that relies on elements which could not be built together is cut back to what could be (p.7).
- Retaining more than half of the original fabric says nothing about proportionality (pp.6, 8).
- CS.10 is treated as "materially consistent" with GB6 and GB7 for householder cases (p.3), as in stratford-26-01310-FUL.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| AnnexB:settlement | fail | "the application site is not considered to be within a settlement because it lies within the Green Belt" (p.2); the Annex B exclusion of washed-over villages applied in terms | |
| S5(5) | not-engaged | S5 "does not apply to development proposals within the Green Belt"; assessed under GB6 and GB7 (p.2); the scheme was inappropriate, so no S5(5) balance | |
| GB7(1)(b) | fail | original dwelling about 374 m3, proposed about 970 m3, an increase of about 596 m3 or 159%; "clearly a disproportionate increase" (p.3); the notice writes "GB7(b)" | |
| AnnexB:PDL | fail | the garden is "within a built-up area" (a row of houses forming part of the village), so it is excluded from the definition of previously developed land (p.3) | |
| GB7(1)(e) | fail | not PDL, and an extension is not "redevelopment" (p.8); the officer was also not satisfied that it "would avoid substantial harm to the openness" (p.10); the report and notice write "GB7(e)" | |
| GB6(2) | fail | substantial | inappropriate; "some moderate harm to the openness" (p.4); fallback and design benefits "not considered sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm" (p.9) |
| DP3 | pass | design acceptable; the remodelled house "would not appear incongruous" in a varied street (p.4) | |
| Transitional(2) | accord | "These elements of GB6 and GB7 are considered to be materially consistent with policy CS.10" (p.3); contrast SDC housing reports, which call CS.10 materially inconsistent |
Key facts
- Original dwelling about 374 m3; proposed about 970 m3; "approximately 2.6 times its original volume"
- The existing garage is a previous extension and was not counted as part of the original building
- Applicant's fallback of about 854 m3 (original house, garage extension, a lawful development certificate dormer, an 8 m larger-home prior approval and a 123 m3 side extension); the officer accepted about 794 m3, because the side extension as drawn would form a wrap-around needing planning permission
- The proposal is about 176 m3, or 22%, above the fallback the officer accepted; fallback given limited weight
- Applicant argued that retaining more than 50% of the original fabric showed compliance; rejected as "not the test within GB7"
- Applicant relied on appeal APP/M0655/W/25/3369894 for the previously developed land route; the officer relied on APP/D0650/W/24/3350591 for a garden within a built-up area
- Parish Council made no representations; no third-party comments
- The harvest log for 17 Aug to 22 Sep 2026 found no SDC report that engaged with the Annex B exclusion of washed-over villages; this report does
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.