- Decision
- approved, 22 September 2026
- Decided by
- Council officer (delegated): Case officer Joshua Cooper
- Authority
- Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands)
- Application reference
- 26/01906/PIP
- Procedure
- delegated
- Development
- Permission in principle for one dwelling in the south garden of a Grade II listed farmhouse
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- inside settlement, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 2.21 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(1), HE6(3)
- Development plan policies
- Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.8, CS.15, AS.10, Long Marston NDP DEV3, HA.1
- Main issues
- heritage setting; principle within settlement
Summary
A PIP for one house in the garden of a Grade II listed farmhouse inside the Long Marston BUAB, 20 m from a second listed cottage. The report records "highly detrimental" harm to setting and a Conservation Officer objection, and gives the harm substantial weight. It then grants under S4 because one home (also substantial weight) is not "substantially outweighed". Granted under delegated powers on 22 September 2026.
Issues and findings
- Principle. The site is within the BUAB and accords with CS.15, AS.10 and NDP DEV3. The officer considered S4(2)(a) and (b) and found them not engaged, and wrote (meaning S4(2)(c)) that "Point C of Policy S5(2) relates to specific reasons for refusing the application under the framework policies and therefore the presumption in favour of development as prescribed by NDMP S3 and S4 would apply" (Report p.5).
- Heritage. "The cumulative impact will severely erode the character of the dwelling's landscape and its sense of isolation, the proposals will be highly detrimental to the dwelling's setting … the status of the designated heritage asset will be devalued" (p.7). The setting of Lyndon Cottage "will not be preserved" (pp.7–8). CS.8 was held "materially inconsistent" with HE5 (p.6).
- Balance. "The harms of the development relates to the harm to the setting of the adjacent Listed Building, is afforded substantial adverse weight … The benefits … contribution of a singe dwelling … afforded substantial positive weight … the benefits of approving the scheme would not be substantially outweighed" (p.10).
Planning balance
S4 only. There is no separate HE6(4) harm-versus-public-benefits exercise, although the report does find that "the design would be contrary to the statutory requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) 1990 Act" (p.8). Substantial weight against substantial weight produced a grant under the S4 tilt.
What made the difference
The officer treated heritage harm as one input into the S4 balance, not as a free-standing HE6(4) test that must be passed first. The Ilmington officer did the opposite and refused.
Transferable points
- Two SDC delegated decisions a month apart reached opposite results on materially similar facts: one dwelling within a BUAB, with harm to the setting of Grade II buildings. Ilmington was also in a Conservation Area. The difference was method. Ilmington ran HE6(4) first and then S4 (refused). Long Marston folded heritage into S4 (granted). The first method is the orthodox one, because HE6(3) and (4) and s66 require the heritage balance to be struck on its own terms.
- Implicit here, though not stated: harm short of "substantial harm" does not trigger S4(2)(c). HE6(4) is framed as a weighing exercise. Only HE6(5), for substantial harm or total loss, says consent "should be refused unless". This is our reading of the Framework, not the officer's words.
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) | pass | within BUAB; none of S4(2)(a)-(c) engaged; benefits not substantially outweighed | |
| HE6(3) | harm | substantial | harm to setting of Grade II Forest Farmhouse ("highly detrimental") and Grade II Lyndon Cottage (20 m); Conservation Officer objected; weighed only inside the S4 balance, with no separate HE6(4) public-benefits test |
| Transitional(2) | conflict | CS.8 held "materially inconsistent" with HE5 | |
| S6 | accord | officer states Long Marston NDP is within 5 years and has sufficient allocations, so S6 would bite on any conflict; scheme accords with DEV3 (within BUAB) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | one dwelling |
Key facts
- The officer's own findings describe the harm as "highly detrimental to the dwelling's setting"; the Conservation Officer objected
- Lyndon Cottage (C17, Grade II) is about 20 m from the plot
- Decision 22 Sep 2026; compare Ilmington (stratford-26-01399-PIP, 28 Aug), where one dwelling was refused on listed building and CA setting harm
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.