- Decision
- refused, 25 September 2026
- Decided by
- Council planning committee: SDC Planning Committee 23 Sep 2026 (vote not recorded; minutes not published at 2 Oct 2026); case officer Ian Guffick
- Authority
- Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)
- Application reference
- 26/01894/PIP
- Procedure
- committee
- Development
- Permission in principle for 3 to 5 dwellings in the rear garden of a house
- Homes
- 5
- Site context
- inside settlement, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 2.21 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(1), L2(1)(d), DP3, N2(1)(a)
- Development plan policies
- Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.5, CS.9, CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, CS.26, CS.4, CS.6
- Main issues
- character and landscape; development within a residential curtilage; S4 balance; member overturn
Summary
PIP (permission in principle) for 3 to 5 homes in the large rear garden of a house on the A422 at Pillerton Priors. The officer recommended approval under S4: character harm of significant weight, and a failure of L2(1)(d), were held not to "substantially outweigh" up to 5 homes against a 2.21-year supply. The Planning Committee of 23 September 2026 did not follow the recommendation. The notice of 25 September refuses permission for one reason: "substantial harm" to village character from backland development within a residential curtilage, which "is considered to substantially outweigh any benefits". The printed minutes were not published at 2 October 2026, so the vote and the debate are not recorded. The copies read are sources:council/stratford-26-01894-PIP-report.pdf, sources:council/stratford-committee-2026-09-23-update-sheet.pdf and sources:council/stratford-26-01894-PIP-notice.pdf.
Issues and findings
- Principle: S4, within a settlement. Pillerton Priors has a tier in the council's settlement hierarchy: it is a Category 4 Local Service Village under CS.15. "I consider the site falls within the physical confines of the Local Service Village" (Report p.6). The scheme therefore accorded with CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10, and S4 applied. The report lists no Green Belt constraint, so the Annex B exclusion of washed-over villages does not arise.
- L2(1)(d): FAIL, by both officer and members. The officer set out S4(2)(a)(ii) and L2(1)(d) in full (Report pp.7–8). Points (i) and (ii) could be met at TDC (technical details consent) stage. On point (iii): "the proposal would not retain at least 50% of the non-developed area within the curtilage of the existing building" (Report pp.8–9). The officer then read the policy down: "Whilst NDMP L2 states the development should comply with these elements, it does not state that the development must comply. This suggests there is some scope for a balanced planning judgement to be undertaken" (Report p.9).
- S4(2)(a)(ii): quoted, not applied. S4(2)(a)(ii) says the benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed where a scheme has a substantial adverse impact on the application of L2(1)(d). After quoting it, the report does not return to it. The balance on p.17 is a plain S4(1) balance.
- Character: officer, significant weight. "the development is therefore considered to result in an inappropriate form of backland development, which is considered to introduce harm to the character of the area through failing to integrate with the existing built form" (Report p.11). "I believe a development of 3-5 dwellings on the site would cause harm to the character the area and would not accord with NDMPs DP3 and N2 and Policies CS.5 and CS.9 of the Core Strategy. In light of NDMP DP3 (2), I afford this harm significant weight" (Report p.12).
- Character: members, substantial harm. "The proposed development would cause substantial harm to the character of Pillerton Priors village through the introduction of a backland form of development within an existing residential curtilage, which would be at odds with the existing settlement character, pattern and landscape character of the area. As a result, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of the landscape and the surrounding character of the local area. The harm is considered to substantially outweigh any benefits associated with the scheme. The application therefore fails to accord with National Planning Policy Framework National Decision-Making Policies S4, L2, DP3 and N2 and Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031) Policies CS.5 and CS.9" (Notice reason 1, in full).
- Location: TR3. "I therefore conclude that Pillerton Priors is a sustainable settlement (with the wider considerations set out TR3 of the NDMPs) that can accommodate a modest number of new dwellings. The level of sustainability is of course not high, as is indicated by its classification as a Category 4 Local Service Village" (Report p.9). The notice raises no location reason.
- Public right of way: TR8. The Update Sheet reported that the county Rights of Way team "has objected to the proposal" because "the recorded alignment of public footpath SS11 crosses the application site within the rear garden of Edoras". Officers answered that "the diversion of a Public Footpath could be successfully secured at TDC stage or outside of the planning process" (Update Sheet p.1). The notice does not cite TR8.
Planning balance
S4(1), run twice with opposite results. The officer set significant weight to character and landscape conflict (DP3, N2, CS.5, CS.9) against substantial weight to up to 5 homes and limited weight to economic and other benefits, and concluded that the benefits "would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (Report p.17). Members graded the character harm as "substantial" and held that it does "substantially outweigh any benefits" (Notice reason 1). The notice gives no weight to the housing benefit and does not mention the supply position.
What made the difference
The same facts, graded differently. The officer accepted that the scheme was backland development at odds with a "strong linear form", that it failed the 50% curtilage test in L2(1)(d)(iii), and that two earlier schemes on the land had been refused on character, one of them (for only 2 dwellings) dismissed at appeal in 2024. The officer still gave the harm only "significant" weight and treated the L2(1)(d) failure as a matter for the general balance. Members called the harm "substantial" and used the S4(1) formula to refuse. Neither the report nor the notice applies S4(2)(a)(ii), the paragraph that makes a substantial adverse impact on the application of L2(1)(d) a circumstance in which the benefits are "likely to be substantially outweighed". The members' reason nonetheless tracks it in substance: substantial harm, from development "within an existing residential curtilage", with S4 and L2 both cited.
Transferable points
- An SDC (Stratford-on-Avon District Council) committee refused a small housing scheme inside a village on the S4(1) balance alone, against an officer recommendation, where the 2.21-year supply had been given substantial weight (Report p.17; Notice reason 1). In the first pass of SDC decisions (17 Aug to 22 Sep 2026) no housing scheme that reached the S4 or S5 balance was refused on the balance alone.
- The officer treated a failure of L2(1)(d)(iii) as "some conflict" open to "a balanced planning judgement", because the policy says "should" (Report p.9). Compare the appeal practice of applying S4(2)(a)(ii) directly: 64 Prestwich Avenue, Worcester 6006644 ¶46 and 86 Alexandra Road, Poole 6010619 ¶58.
- The refusal reason cites "L2" and "S4" without their limbs. On appeal the council will need to tie the reason to L2(1)(d)(i) and (iii) and to S4(2)(a)(ii); the officer's own finding that point (iii) is failed (Report pp.9, 17) supports that.
- A PIP fixes only location, land use and amount, but both the officer and members judged character harm at this stage from an indicative layout and from the planning history (Report pp.11–12).
- Compare Snitterfield (stratford-26-00617-PIP): there the officer gave backland character harm substantial weight and members still approved. Here the officer gave it significant weight and members refused.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S4(1) | fail | members - "The harm is considered to substantially outweigh any benefits associated with the scheme" (Notice reason 1) | |
| S4(1) | pass | officer view - the benefits "would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (Report p.17); recommendation GRANT | |
| L2(1)(d) | fail | members - the notice cites "L2" with no limb; the reason describes "a backland form of development within an existing residential curtilage" (Notice reason 1) | |
| L2(1)(d) | fail | officer view - fails point (iii) because the scheme would not retain 50% of the non-developed curtilage; "some conflict", but the policy says "should" and not "must" (Report pp.9, 13, 17); the report writes "L2 (1)(4) point iii" | |
| S4(2)(a)(ii) | not-engaged | officer view - quoted in full (Report p.7) but never applied; no finding on whether the L2(1)(d) failure was a "substantial adverse impact"; the notice cites S4 and L2 but not S4(2) | |
| DP3 | harm | members - "substantial harm to the character of Pillerton Priors village"; the notice cites DP3 with no limb and gives no weight word | |
| DP3 | harm | significant | officer view - "In light of NDMP DP3 (2), I afford this harm significant weight" (Report p.12) |
| N2(1)(a) | harm | members - the notice cites "N2" with no limb; "an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of the landscape" (Notice reason 1); the officer also found conflict with N2 (Report p.12) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | officer view - up to 5 dwellings against a 2.21-year supply (Report pp.16-17); the notice gives no weight to the benefits ("any benefits") |
| TR3 | pass | officer view - "a sustainable settlement" with pavements, a village hall, a petrol station and a bus service, but "The level of sustainability is of course not high" (Report p.9) | |
| TR8 | neutral | officer view - the Update Sheet reports an objection from the county Rights of Way team (the definitive line of footpath SS11 crosses the rear garden); officers said a diversion could be secured at technical details stage; not a refusal reason | |
| Transitional(2) | conflict | very-limited | officer view - CS.26 "materially inconsistent" because it lacks the "severe" test (Report p.14); CS.5 and CS.9 treated as materially consistent (Report p.9) |
Key facts
- Officer recommendation was GRANT (agenda and Report p.18); the committee met on 23 Sep 2026 and the refusal notice, with one reason, is dated 25 Sep 2026, so members overturned the recommendation
- The printed minutes were not published at 2 Oct 2026, so the vote, the mover and the debate are not recorded here; the outcome and the reason are taken from the decision notice
- The Update Sheet for the meeting did not change the recommendation; it reported only the Rights of Way objection
- Rear garden about 50 m deep and 65 m wide; the indicative layout shows 5 dwellings round a courtyard behind a linear frontage on the south side of the A422
- Earlier schemes on the land - 21/01649/FUL (5 dwellings) refused 22 Dec 2021; 22/03649/FUL (2 dwellings) refused 28 Jun 2023 and dismissed at appeal 1 Mar 2024, both on character
- Pillerton Priors is a Category 4 Local Service Village (CS.15); the officer held the site within its "physical confines", citing the draft boundary in the withdrawn Site Allocations Plan and the boundary in the Parish Plan
- The scheme would not retain 50% of the non-developed curtilage (L2(1)(d)(iii)); the host house would keep a rear garden of about 14 m by 30 m
- Parish Council objected; 9 third-party objections including CPRE; county highway authority raised no objection
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.