# Land at Windmill Lane, Ladbroke - **Decision:** approved, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Sarah Flaherty - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/01660/OUT - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Outline permission, all matters reserved except access, for up to 5 open-market dwellings on a field that already has outline permission for 5 self-build dwellings - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, CS.5, CS.9, CS.26, CS.4, CS.6, CS.2, CS.18 - **Main issues:** principle outside a settlement, sustainable location, landscape character, fallback, self-build supply - **Tags:** s5-1-j, housing-shortfall, fallback, sustainable-location-pass, landscape-harm, self-build-swapped-for-market, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, drafting-slip, open-market, small-scheme, stratford-relevant ## Summary Outline permission for up to 5 open-market homes on a field outside Ladbroke, granted under delegated powers on 24 September 2026. The field already had outline permission for 5 self-build homes. The officer held the site to be open countryside and contrary to the Core Strategy, but passed it under S5(1)(j) on the 2.21-year supply. Landscape harm of significant weight and the loss of 5 self-build plots did not "substantially outweigh" 5 homes given substantial weight. The report is a scanned image and was read by OCR (optical character recognition); page numbers are PDF pages. ## Issues and findings - **Development plan: conflict, very limited weight.** "Due to the degree of separation between the application site and the village itself, the site is not considered to fall within the physical confines of Ladbroke" (p.3). The scheme met none of the AS.10 categories. CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10 were then held "materially inconsistent with the relevant NDMPs" because S5(1)(j) allows development they would not (p.5). - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "The Council can demonstrate 2.21 years of housing land supply and I am therefore satisfied that there is an evidenced unmet need" (p.5). On limb (i): "I am also satisfied that the development would be well-related to an existing settlement and would be of a scale that the local settlement could accommodate" (p.5). No reasons are given. The landscape section says the opposite about the site's relationship to the village: "The application site is divorced from the edge of Ladbroke, with a field separating the application site from the closest dwelling to the west" (p.6). - **Location, TR3: PASS, on mixed findings.** "There is one local bus service, although the service is infrequent." "Whilst noting that the majority of journeys to the nearest larger settlement (Southam) are likely to be undertaken by private vehicle, the journey would take around 6-7 minutes and therefore such trips would be relatively short in duration. There is no made footpath from the application site into Southam, and when considered together these factors would weigh against the proposal in terms of the sustainability of the site location for residential development." The next sentence concludes: "I am therefore satisfied that the proposal accords well with the NPPF and NDMPs S5 and TR3 in particular" (p.5). The balance later describes the site as having "reasonable access to services, amenities and public transport" (p.11). - **Landscape and character: harm, significant weight.** "The scheme would have an urbanising impact, and the loss of open countryside is harmful to the local landscape" (p.6). "I afford this significant weight against the application" (p.12). - **Fallback.** "I consider that the implementation of 24/03249/OUT is wholly achievable given the extant planning permission and time available to the applicant to submit the relevant reserved matters applications" (p.11). "The loss to the 3-year rolling supply of SCB dwellings is a disbenefit of this proposal to which I attach moderate weight in the planning balance." The officer concluded that "the fallback position has a similar impact to that of the proposal subject of this application" (p.11). ## Planning balance S5(1) "substantially outweighed" balance. Against: very limited weight to the conflict with CS.15, CS.16, AS.10 and the emerging plan; significant weight to character and landscape harm; moderate weight to the loss of self-build plots. For: substantial weight to up to 5 homes; limited weight to economic benefits and climate measures. "I conclude that the benefits of approving the scheme would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (p.12). ## What made the difference Two things carried the scheme. First, the extant outline permission for 5 self-build homes meant that houses on the field were already permitted, so the landscape harm was treated as no worse than the fallback. Second, the officer took the supply shortfall as satisfying S5(1)(j) and gave no separate reasons on whether the site is "physically well-related" to Ladbroke. The report's own facts (a field between the site and the nearest house; outside the physical confines; no footway to the nearest town; one infrequent bus) would have supported the opposite finding on limb (i) and on TR3 had there been no fallback. ## Transferable points - SDC passed S5(1)(j)(i) for a site it described as "divorced from the edge" of the village and outside its "physical confines" (pp.3, 5, 6). Inspectors read "physically well-related" on settlement form and severance; this report does not. - Location factors that "would weigh against the proposal" were followed directly by a finding that the scheme "accords well" with TR3 (p.5). The short car trip to the nearest town ("around 6-7 minutes") was again used as mitigation, as at Snitterfield (stratford-26-00617-PIP). - Swapping a self-build permission for open-market housing was treated as a moderate disbenefit only (p.11). The report does not say why the earlier permission was limited to self-build homes. - Character and landscape harm of "significant" weight did not "substantially outweigh" 5 homes of substantial weight (p.12). - Drafting slips: the "severe" test is cited as "NDMP TR 4" (p.8) and CC2(2) as "NDMP CS.2 (2)" (p.10). Neither affected the outcome. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** the 2.21-year supply taken as the evidenced unmet need; "well-related to an existing settlement" asserted in one sentence (p.5), although the site is outside the "physical confines" (p.3) and "divorced from the edge of Ladbroke" by a field (p.6) - **TR3: pass.** one infrequent bus service; the car trip to Southam "around 6-7 minutes"; "no made footpath from the application site into Southam"; these factors "would weigh against the proposal", yet the scheme "accords well" with S5 and TR3 (p.5) - **DP3: harm (significant weight).** "urbanising impact" of 5 "sizable dwellings" on an undeveloped field; contrary to CS.5, CS.9 and DP3 (p.6); weight given on p.12 - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** up to 5 dwellings to the district supply (p.12) - **HO7: harm (moderate weight).** loss of 5 self-build plots from the council's 3-year rolling supply, because the open-market scheme replaces the extant self-build outline (p.11) - **TR6(4): pass.** county highway authority raised no objection subject to conditions; no "severe" impact; the report cites "NDMP TR 4" (p.8) - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10 "materially inconsistent" because S5(1)(j) allows what they would not (p.5); CS.26 too (p.7); CS.5, CS.9, CS.4 and CS.6 treated as materially consistent ## Key facts - Extant outline permission 24/03249/OUT for up to 5 self-build or custom-build dwellings on the same site (the history table gives 5 Mar 2026; the text says it was granted "in 2025") - The fallback was held to have "a similar impact" to the proposal; the only difference weighed was the loss of 5 self-build plots (moderate weight against) - Ladbroke is a Category 4 Local Service Village (CS.15) with no neighbourhood plan; the site was held outside its physical confines and "in the open countryside" - A field separates the site from the closest dwelling to the west; the A423 runs to the north and east - One infrequent bus service; no made footpath to Southam, the nearest Main Rural Centre - Tree Preservation Order trees on the southern boundary; public footpath SM90 crosses the south-east corner; a potential Local Wildlife Site adjoins - Parish Council made no representation; 7 letters of support or no objection; CPRE commented that the scheme conflicts with AS.10 - Biodiversity net gain by purchase of off-site units, secured by condition - Below the CS.18 threshold for affordable housing (6 or more dwellings in this location) ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/b375344b-ba73-cd39-013e-08dedc0bbcac --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01660-OUT.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.