# Field south of The Slade, Fenny Compton

- **Decision:** approved, 29 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Catherine Gibbons
- **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)
- **Application reference:** 26/01801/FUL
- **Procedure:** delegated
- **Development:** Conversion of a stone threshing barn and cart shed, with a new linked building, to one self-build dwelling, with a ground-mounted solar array and private water and drainage
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated, valued-landscape
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), S5(3), HO11(1)(c)
- **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 AS.10, CS.5, CS.9, CS.12, CS.20, CS.26, CS.4, CS.6, CS.2, Fenny Compton NDP 2023 DE.2, NA.4
- **Main issues:** reuse of rural buildings, isolated home, Class Q fallback, extension scale, self-build
- **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, isolated-home, ho11, barn-conversion, class-q-fallback, fallback, self-build, bng-exemption, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, drafting-slip, small-scheme, stratford-relevant

## Summary
Conversion of two stone barns in open countryside near Fenny Compton to one self-build home, with a new single-storey wing on the footprint of a third barn that no longer stands. Granted under delegated powers on 29 September 2026. The threshing barn already had a Class Q prior approval, under way on site, so the scheme added no dwelling. The officer routed the proposal through S5(1)(c) and, as an isolated home, HO11(1)(c), and measured harm against the Class Q fallback. The report is a scanned image and was read by OCR; page numbers are PDF pages.

## Issues and findings
- **Development plan: conflict.** AS.10 allows conversion of a redundant building of merit only where residential is the only viable use. "No marketing or viability information has been submitted with the application and therefore in the absence of such, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal accords with CS policy AS.10 or NDP Policy DE.2 and is therefore contrary to the Development Plan" (p.4).
- **S5(1)(c) and HO11(1)(c): PASS.** The officer quoted S5(1)(c) and the isolated-homes rule, then: "NDMP HO11 1. C supports the reuse of a redundant or disused building which would enhance its immediate setting. Subject to a detailed assessment of all other material considerations, I consider the development to be in accordance with NDMP S5. In this instance, I afford NDMP S5 and HO11 significant weight in the assessment of this application" (p.6).
- **The extension.** "Although it is acknowledged that the proposed extension is sensitive in its design, it is a substantial extension and cannot be considered a small outshoot or lean to. Such a large extension is contrary to the intentions of Part G of the SPD" (p.8). The report does not test the new building against the S5(1)(c) proviso that an extension must not be a "disproportionate increase in size compared to the existing building". The word appears only where the policy is quoted.
- **Fallback.** "Since development of the Class Q scheme is currently underway on site, I consider that there is a greater than theoretical possibility of the Class Q permission being completed in the event planning permission is not forthcoming for this application" (p.5). "Whilst the proposal is not compliant with Policy AS.10 or NDP Policy DE.2, the conflict with the development plan in this instance may be outweighed by the existing permitted change of use of the building under Class Q" (p.6).
- **Housing weight: neutral.** "There is an extant permission for a dwelling on the site. In the event the planning permission were forthcoming, this proposal would not result in a net increase in the number of dwellings provided. In this instance, I afford the provision of one dwelling neutral weight" (p.7).
- **Self-build: moderate.** "Considering the Council has a surplus of self-build plots at the time of writing this report and this would contribute a modest supply to the legal requirement; I afford the addition of one SCB dwelling moderate weight" (p.4).
- **Neighbourhood plan.** S6 was held not engaged because the plan, made in 2023, has no housing allocations, and DE.2 was given very limited weight (p.7).
- **Enhancement.** The new wing would create a courtyard that "would contain and screen the associated domestic paraphernalia from public view" and restore "the appearance of the historic grouping of the complex" (p.13).

## Planning balance
S5(1) "substantially outweighed" balance, run as a comparison with the Class Q scheme. "The harm resulting from the proposal would have to be substantially adverse in order to refuse the proposal. To quantify the harm I need to make a comparison with the Class Q" (p.12). Betterments over the fallback (courtyard screening, restored historic grouping, renewable energy, biodiversity measures, home working space) were given "positive weight". Against: a larger curtilage, loss of the cart shed from agricultural use, and an extension contrary to the council's design guidance, which "is only guidance" (p.14). "I have not identified any adverse effects that would substantially outweigh granting the proposed scheme and so I conclude that permission should be granted in accordance with NDMP S5 and HO11" (p.14).

## What made the difference
The Class Q conversion was already being built. That fixed the comparison: one dwelling either way, so the only questions were whether the extra building and the larger curtilage did harm, and whether the design was better. The officer found an enhancement, which also met HO11(1)(c). Without the fallback, the scheme would have faced the AS.10 conflict with no viability evidence and a "substantial extension" to a traditional barn.

## Transferable points
- SDC applies S5(3) and HO11(1)(c) to a barn conversion in open countryside and finds enhancement of the immediate setting in a design that hides domestic clutter and restores a historic grouping (pp.13–14).
- A Class Q approval that is being implemented gives a fallback of real weight, and SDC measures harm as the difference from it (p.12). The same approach was taken at Oxhill (stratford-26-01393-FUL).
- Where the fallback already gives a dwelling, the new dwelling carries neutral housing weight even with a 2.21-year supply (p.7).
- A new building on the footprint of a barn that has gone was treated as an "extension" of the surviving barn (pp.4, 8). The report did not ask whether it is disproportionate under S5(1)(c), where the baseline is the existing building at the date the Framework was published.
- The report treats the site as exempt from biodiversity net gain because it is 0.1918 ha (p.11). Appeal letters say the 0.2 ha exemption applies only to applications made on or after 6 August 2026 (Barns at The Old Rectory, Bredicot 6009042 ¶34); the notice records this application as received on 29 July 2026. The report does not address the date. As a self-build scheme it may qualify under the separate self-build exemption, which SDC relied on at Stretton-on-Fosse (stratford-26-01687-FUL), but the report relies on site area alone.
- Drafting slips: the principle section ends "the proposal is unacceptable in principle subject to an assessment of all other material considerations" (p.7), and the officer gives "significant weight" to S5 and HO11 themselves (pp.6, 12).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(c): pass.** quoted and held met, "Subject to a detailed assessment of all other material considerations" (p.6); the new linked building (17.5 m by 5.8 m) is called "a substantial extension" (p.8), but the report makes no finding on whether it is a "disproportionate increase" over the existing building
- **S5(3): pass.** isolated-homes rule cited; routed to HO11 (p.6)
- **HO11(1)(c): pass.** reuse of a redundant or disused building that enhances its immediate setting; "the proposal would result in an enhancement of the site and its setting" (p.14); the report writes "HO11 1. C"
- **HO7: neutral.** no net gain because the Class Q approval already gives one dwelling; "I afford the provision of one dwelling neutral weight" (p.7)
- **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one self-build dwelling given moderate weight although the council has a surplus of self-build plots (p.4); secured by condition 9 of the notice
- **DP3: harm.** mapped - the report cites only Part G of the council's Development Requirements SPD; "some design harm as a result of the scale of the proposed extension" (p.12); no weight word
- **S6: not-engaged.** neighbourhood plan made 2023 "but does not contain housing allocations (as detailed in the Interim Policy Position Statement)" (p.7)
- **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** NDP DE.2 given very limited weight because S6 is not engaged (p.7); CS.26 "materially inconsistent" (p.10); the AS.10 conflict (no viability evidence) is set against the Class Q fallback and not given a weight
- **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): not-engaged.** "The site area is 0.1918 hectares, making it exempt" (p.11); the notice records the application as received on 29 Jul 2026 and does not mention biodiversity net gain

## Key facts
- Class Q prior approval 25/01108/COUQ (30 Jul 2025) to convert the threshing barn to a dwelling was "well underway" at the officer's site visit
- Lawful development certificate 25/01408/LDP (7 Aug 2025) covers repair of the cart shed as an agricultural building
- The new linked building, 17.5 m long, 5.8 m wide and about 5.7 m to the ridge, stands on the cobbled floor of a third barn shown on historic maps but no longer present
- Site just over 1 km south-east of Fenny Compton; open countryside in the Ironstone Hill Special Landscape Area; no dwellings nearby
- Contrary to AS.10 and NDP DE.2 because no marketing or viability evidence showed residential to be the only viable use
- The curtilage is larger than under the Class Q approval; permitted development rights removed by condition
- Self-build secured by a condition tying the building and first occupation of the dwelling to the applicant
- No objections; Parish Council made no representation; county highway authority and county ecologist raised no objection

## Sources
- https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/630656aa-537e-cfa3-a20a-08dee8949ac5

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01801-FUL.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.